NFL Week 3 Thread: Sep 24-Sep 28

[ak7]

Aaron Rodgers has the GOAT peak among QBs, clearly on another level from a guy like Brady, because as Steve Young said, he's basically a Tom Brady that can move.

I'd put him in the GOAT discussion already. Brady's argument at this point is purely longevity, because in terms of who's actually better, Rodgers is currently better than Brady has ever been.

Brady is on pace to have his best season ever, and Rodgers is still clearly better...and he's doing this WITHOUT Jordy Nelson. Unreal.

The GOAT argument in football is confusing and the prerequisties change wildly from person to person, if we're including rings/accolade, then Brady/Montana are my GOATs, but if not, I agree, it's Rodgers hands down. Dude is unbelievable.

I've never understood the whole "rings" argument as to determining who the GOAT is. Especially in a game that is so team reliant as Football. Dan Marino was a heck of a QB and better than a vast majority of the QB's who are considered all-time greats due to rings.

Rodgers definitely has never had the luxury of playing with some of those very, very good defenses from some of their SB winning teams.

Brady, lately, arguably has not had the luxury of playing with some of the weapons Rodgers has had - I say that loosely though because a few arguments can be made throughout the years if you look at certain individual players.

I think Steve Young said it best on MNF: Rodgers is a better (arm strength, accuracy, pre-snap, progression, outside the pocket), and extremely more mobile version of Tom Brady.

Me personally, I don't think people give Brady enough credit for keeping that franchise as relevant as its been despite their at times, money-pinching ways and a lack of initiative to surround him with adequate help.

[Worm Guts]

I can't speak anything to the quality of the grades, but the whole idea is to give a different perspective. Because multiple factors can affect results, sometimes a guy who threw 3 interceptions can play a better game than the guy who threw 3 touchdowns, but then people get upset if the grade doesn't match conventional wisdom.

[therealbig3]

Aaron Rodgers has the GOAT peak among QBs, clearly on another level from a guy like Brady, because as Steve Young said, he's basically a Tom Brady that can move.

I'd put him in the GOAT discussion already. Brady's argument at this point is purely longevity, because in terms of who's actually better, Rodgers is currently better than Brady has ever been.

Brady is on pace to have his best season ever, and Rodgers is still clearly better...and he's doing this WITHOUT Jordy Nelson. Unreal.

The GOAT argument in football is confusing and the prerequisties change wildly from person to person, if we're including rings/accolade, then Brady/Montana are my GOATs, but if not, I agree, it's Rodgers hands down. Dude is unbelievable.

I've never understood the whole "rings" argument as to determining who the GOAT is. Especially in a game that is so team reliant as Football. Dan Marino was a heck of a QB and better than a vast majority of the QB's who are considered all-time greats due to rings.

Rodgers definitely has never had the luxury of playing with some of those very, very good defenses from some of their SB winning teams.

Brady, lately, arguably has not had the luxury of playing with some of the weapons Rodgers has had - I say that loosely though because a few arguments can be made throughout the years if you look at certain individual players.

I think Steve Young said it best on MNF: Rodgers is a better (arm strength, accuracy, pre-snap, progression, outside the pocket), and extremely more mobile version of Tom Brady.

Me personally, I don't think people give Brady enough credit for keeping that franchise as relevant as its been despite their at times, money-pinching ways and a lack of initiative to surround him with adequate help.

I disagree on a couple of points:

-I don't think Rodgers does anything better than Brady except for his mobility...Brady is his equal in all other aspects of QBing imo. Of course, that mobility gives Rodgers a decisive edge, since it's a huge advantage when he's already a comparable pocket presence.

-The weapons argument doesn't work for Brady when you look at what Rodgers is working with, especially without Jordy Nelson. The fact that he's done what he's done through the first 3 weeks without one of the best receivers in football is amazing. Brady has the best slot receiver in the game (Edelman) and the best TE ever (Gronk). I think Edelman is partially a product of Brady, but he's still really good, and Gronk would be great with any QB.

Now, what Rodgers has now is what Brady had to work with for most of his career, when he didn't have Gronk/when Gronk was injured, and when he didn't have Moss. And I don't think people give Brady enough credit for that, because it's not easy to win games and put up big numbers when you don't have any big time weapons to throw to. Not to mention he never had great RBs, merely solid ones. Eddie Lacy is probably better than any RB that Brady has played with. But then again, I would probably take Welker/Edelman over Cobb. All in all, as great as Brady is, he never played as well as Rodgers has when he had similar offensive options. In fact, he's never played as well as Rodgers has at his best, regardless of what team he's had around him. I'd take 2011 Rodgers over 2007 Brady, no question.

[bwgood77]

Rodgers accuracy is far better than Brady's. Brady averages double the interceptions Rodgers does.

[High 5]

I read PFF gave Rodgers a negative grade for last night's performance. I'll never understand those ratings.

I can help here.

Thanks for the write-up. I've seen a few explanations, including PFF's, and their system seems very flawed. I'm all for going beyond the boxscore and finding a more accurate measure of QBs, but how can you accomplish that when you place no value on "easy" throws and ignore everything pre-snap? That's often what makes a QB great. So at the end of the day their grades seem just as shallow as the boxscore.

One thing I learned that makes no sense to me is the way they handle penalties. Drawing a defender offsides contributes nothing to a QB's grade. However, throwing an interception during that free play would negatively affect his grade. One of the two plays PFF specifically criticized Rodgers for was fumbling when there was defensive holding called. I believe it works both ways, too. So a successful throw that's called back because of offensive PI would give the QB a positive score. I'm not sure why they choose to do it that way, but it obviously makes their final grades very unreliable.

As for holding QBs accountable for lucky non-interceptions, that's great, but Ryan had a slightly better score (-0.6 vs. -0.8) against the Eagles than Rodgers had against KC. He threw 2 actual interceptions (one that should have been an easy TD) and could've easily been picked off 3 or 4 other times. His first TD was one of those easy throws and his second TD was nice, but arguably easier than a couple of the TDs Rodgers threw. I'm just not seeing much value in their QB grades. They gave Ryan a fat 6.0 for the game against the Cowboys, though, so that's cool.

[therealbig3]

Rodgers accuracy is far better than Brady's. Brady averages double the interceptions Rodgers does.

Not really. According to INT%, when you compare when both of them became full-time starters, Rodgers has a 1.6% interception rate, while Brady averages 2.0%.

If you want to compare when both of them blew up as superstar, elite QBs, Brady from 07-now averages a 1.5% interception rate. Rodgers from 2009-now averages a 1.4% interception rate. Even if you want to start from 2011-now (beginning with Rodgers's first GOAT-level year), Rodgers averages a 1.3% interception rate.

Basically, the difference in interceptions between the two is negligible.

[bwgood77]

Rodgers accuracy is far better than Brady's. Brady averages double the interceptions Rodgers does.

Not really. According to INT%, when you compare when both of them became full-time starters, Rodgers has a 1.6% interception rate, while Brady averages 2.0%.

If you want to compare when both of them blew up as superstar, elite QBs, Brady from 07-now averages a 1.5% interception rate. Rodgers from 2009-now averages a 1.4% interception rate. Even if you want to start from 2011-now (beginning with Rodgers's first GOAT-level year), Rodgers averages a 1.3% interception rate.

Basically, the difference in interceptions between the two is negligible.

The difference between 1.6% and 2% is 25%. 1000 passes, 160 vs 200 interceptions. It's not quite as big as I thought (if your info is accurate), but that isn't as negligible as it might seem.