Jump to content

Who is better Aaron Rodgers or Brett Favre


TuscanyTile2

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply
17 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I think what separates Brady and Montana is durability.

Agreed however, Montana played the game during an era where QBs got hit a lot more often.  The game has changed a lot (making it easier for the QB).  I still think Brady might be better but it's hard to compare eras.  I have to give Brady a ton of credit though for maintaining his fire all these years.  He's also incredibly clutch (just like Joe Cool).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Irish Jet said:

They went 11-5 with Matt Cassell so it's ridiculous to suggest he hasn't played on legitimately great teams. Of course he's been the main reason they've won - He's GREAT. I'm not disputing how good Tom Brady actually is - I just think Rodgers is better.

He was great in 2006 but his stats weren't fantastic (I blame the team for that, rather than him and obviously not judging him by todays inflated numbers) but I don't see how that takes away from what Rodgers just done, who just scored 34 points on the road to the #1 seed without his best WR. They're both fantastic, I just put Rodgers at another level - Just from watching both of them play.

 

You're entitled to your opinion but I think you're way off here.  I'm not saying Rodgers isn't a tremendous QB but he has a very long way to go to catch Brady (and it's questionable if he has enough prime years left to even approach Brady's greatness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Agreed however, Montana played the game during an era where QBs got hit a lot more often.  The game has changed a lot (making it easier for the QB).  I still think Brady might be better but it's hard to compare eras.  I have to give Brady a ton of credit though for maintaining his fire all these years.  He's also incredibly clutch (just like Joe Cool).

that is partially true, Montana also played in the "in the grasp era" where they blew the whistle as soon as a QB was touched and Brady goes up against much bigger, faster, stronger opponents.  

I think you have to compare how the player did against their era and Brady, in my opinion, has been better against his peers in this era than Joe was in his.

If someone tells me Joe is #1 I can accept that, it's fine in either order but watching Brady up close for all these years I give him the edge.  I can't wait until he retires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

but Montana played when teams were allowed to hit the QB

Undefeated with zero interceptions in a Super Bowl will always separate them - Joe Cool in front "hey looks it's John Candy"

on your first point, he played in the "in the grasp era" where the whistle blew when the QB was grabbed.  Brady has also played against bigger, stronger, more athletic players.

 

on the 2nd point, he was undefeated in SBs w/ zero INts BUT the NFC was so much better than that the SB was almost an afterthought.  if you won the NFC(at least for their last 3 SB wins) you were winning the SB and Brady has made more title games, more SBs, has as many SB wins in an era where it's harder to maintain success b/c of free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2017 at 5:44 PM, NoBowles said:

NOt even close, Rodgers by a lot

This. It isn't close at all. Brett was a fantastic quarterback don't get me wrong, and it's even more impressive how he was able to be a successful gun slinger which is very hard to pull off, but all his stats (while extremely impressive, don't get me wrong I'm not taking them away from him) came from his longevity and the amount of games he played, which is actually the most impressive thing about Favre, his durability which makes him a hofer alone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

on your first point, he played in the "in the grasp era" where the whistle blew when the QB was grabbed.  Brady has also played against bigger, stronger, more athletic players.

 

on the 2nd point, he was undefeated in SBs w/ zero INts BUT the NFC was so much better than that the SB was almost an afterthought.  if you won the NFC(at least for their last 3 SB wins) you were winning the SB and Brady has made more title games, more SBs, has as many SB wins in an era where it's harder to maintain success b/c of free agency.

i don't care if montana was in the in the grasp era.  he was lit up quite a few times.  as a matter of fact the giants knocked him out of one of their games.  brady has never ever had to absorb the same pounding that montana took.  and imo the level of competition was way higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

but Montana played when teams were allowed to hit the QB

Undefeated with zero interceptions in a Super Bowl will always separate them - Joe Cool in front "hey looks it's John Candy"

A couple of points on this:

-Montana lost 3 conference championship games (to Redskins, Giants, and Buffalo).  Is that viewed upon more positively than Brady getting into but losing 2 Super Bowls?

-In the Cincy Superbowl of 1988 during the famous John Taylor TD drive, the Bengals D dropped an interception (I think it went through the defender's hands).  It should've been picked though and Cincy would've won.  (I think it was like the play before or a couple of plays before the Taylor TD).  So some of this is just luck.  I'm sure Brady has had a break or two as well btw.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rangerous said:

i don't care if montana was in the in the grasp era.  he was lit up quite a few times.  as a matter of fact the giants knocked him out of one of their games.  brady has never ever had to absorb the same pounding that montana took.  and imo the level of competition was way higher.

jim burt amost killed montana, no flag.  if anyone hit brady like that they would be suspended and we would get a new rule. more importantly, this was before the ty law rule, and safeties could knock WR's heads off. you had to be crazy to go over the middle back them, now the pats have 190 lb dudes doing it, lol

can you imagine the big cry baby getting thrown down on his head by LT ?   lololololol

brady would be the first one to tell you joe cool is the GOAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Larz said:

jim burt amost killed montana, no flag.  if anyone hit brady like that they would be suspended and we would get a new rule. more importantly, this was before the ty law rule, and safeties could knock WR's heads off. you had to be crazy to go over the middle back them, now the pats have 190 lb dudes doing it, lol

can you imagine the big cry baby getting thrown down on his head by LT ?   lololololol

brady would be the first one to tell you joe cool is the GOAT

Fully agree that Montana played in a MUCH TOUGHER era.  I laughed when the person wrote that he played in the "in the grasp" era as if that meant things were so bad for QBs back then.  It was night and day a rougher sport back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

on your first point, he played in the "in the grasp era" where the whistle blew when the QB was grabbed.  Brady has also played against bigger, stronger, more athletic players.

 

on the 2nd point, he was undefeated in SBs w/ zero INts BUT the NFC was so much better than that the SB was almost an afterthought.  if you won the NFC(at least for their last 3 SB wins) you were winning the SB and Brady has made more title games, more SBs, has as many SB wins in an era where it's harder to maintain success b/c of free agency.

Not sure what you're saying with your point about the "in the grasp era".  Montana's era was WAY tougher than Brady's for QBs.  Apples and oranges.  Montana also played against terrific players btw.  LT wouldn't be great?  Mike Singletary? Dexter Manley?

As for your point about the NFC being better, look at Brady's SB opponents.  I'll give you the Rams and Seahawks but what about Carolina & Philly? Btw, Montana played against a very tough Bengals team in 1988 and an explosive Dolphin team back in 1984.  The 1981 Bengals were solid but the Broncos didn't hold a candle to the 49ers back then.

Agreed about free-agency btw, but that's more a testament to Belichick than Brady I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

but Montana played when teams were allowed to hit the QB

Undefeated with zero interceptions in a Super Bowl will always separate them - Joe Cool in front "hey looks it's John Candy"

To be fair, I felt like Aaron Rodgers sort of had that moment this week when he played that down without a chin strap (when his OL was on the sidelines getting his fixed).  Rodgers completed a pass and then smiled/laughed to the sidelines.  I have to admit it was a legendary performance this week by Rodgers.  But Montana and Brady have a career full of those moments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

A couple of points on this:

-Montana lost 3 conference championship games (to Redskins, Giants, and Buffalo).  Is that viewed upon more positively than Brady getting into but losing 2 Super Bowls?

-In the Cincy Superbowl of 1988 during the famous John Taylor TD drive, the Bengals D dropped an interception (I think it went through the defender's hands).  It should've been picked though and Cincy would've won.  (I think it was like the play before or a couple of plays before the Taylor TD).  So some of this is just luck.  I'm sure Brady has had a break or two as well btw.

Good points, but Brady has had the division handed to him with a bye for the last 15 years and has lost 4 conference championship games Colt, Ravens, Broncos, Broncos and hopefully the Steelers to make 5 

plus Brady got knocked out of the playoffs at home by Rexy and the Jets :) Do you think Montana loses a home game to Rex? not sure about Buddy but this Times article sounds familiar; http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/25/sports/montana-stuns-the-eagles.html 

and I agree, Rodgers was amazing yesterday, all top ten QB's and the Jets need one :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Fully agree that Montana played in a MUCH TOUGHER era.  I laughed when the person wrote that he played in the "in the grasp" era as if that meant things were so bad for QBs back then.  It was night and day a rougher sport back then. 

agreed.  look at all this grasping

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

Good points, but Brady has had the division handed to him with a bye for the last 15 years and has lost 4 conference championship games Colt, Ravens, Broncos, Broncos and hopefully the steelers to make 5 

plus Brady got knocked out of the playoffs at home by Rexy and the Jets :) Do you think Montana loses a home game to Rex? not sure about Buddy but this Times article sounds familiar; http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/25/sports/montana-stuns-the-eagles.html 

All top ten QB's and the Jets need one :)

I just don't know that I think Brady should be penalized for losing 4 conference championships to Montana's 3.  Nor playing in 6 SBs but losing 2 (as opposed to playing and winning all 4).  I think they're both in the same rarefied air.  It's tough to pick the better of those 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Fully agree that Montana played in a MUCH TOUGHER era.  I laughed when the person wrote that he played in the "in the grasp" era as if that meant things were so bad for QBs back then.  It was night and day a rougher sport back then. 

But he played in a era after the 1978 rules that helped the Offense.. He had Rice the Goat as his W/R and a great D..When Montana left the Team made the playoffs for the next 8 years and won a Bowl.. BTW it was much rougher when Namath played..Montana had 1 year when he had more then 30 tds..and that was 31 in 1987..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Savage69 said:

But he played in a era after the 1978 rules that helped the Offense.. He had Rice the Goat as his W/R and a great D..When Montana left the Team made the playoffs for the next 8 years and won a Bowl.. BTW it was much rougher when Namath played..Montana had 1 year when he had more then 30 tds..and that was 31 in 1987..

I'm sure it was much rougher in Namath's days than Montana's.  Heck, the equipment alone probably got much better.  As for stats, the NFL was a different (and I say much better) game back in the 1980's when the running game was a big deal (more so than passing actually).  Teams used the run to set up the pass.  Montana/Walsh revolutionized the game by doing the reverse (basically the WCO).  There were a few teams who threw a lot (e.g. Fouts' Chargers, Marino's Dolphins) but most teams emphasized the run (certainly a heck of a lot more than today's teams do).  Most QBs didn't even complete 60% of their passes back in the 80's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rangerous said:

i don't care if montana was in the in the grasp era.  he was lit up quite a few times.  as a matter of fact the giants knocked him out of one of their games.  brady has never ever had to absorb the same pounding that montana took.  and imo the level of competition was way higher.

you will find hard hits on Montana, you will find hard hits on Tom Brady.  the biggest difference is the size, strength and speed of the guys hitting Brady.

14 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Not sure what you're saying with your point about the "in the grasp era".  Montana's era was WAY tougher than Brady's for QBs.  Apples and oranges.  Montana also played against terrific players btw.  LT wouldn't be great?  Mike Singletary? Dexter Manley?

As for your point about the NFC being better, look at Brady's SB opponents.  I'll give you the Rams and Seahawks but what about Carolina & Philly? Btw, Montana played against a very tough Bengals team in 1988 and an explosive Dolphin team back in 1984.  The 1981 Bengals were solid but the Broncos didn't hold a candle to the 49ers back then.

Agreed about free-agency btw, but that's more a testament to Belichick than Brady I think.

No it wasn't, just b/c there are more flags thrown doesn't mean the 80s and 90s were tougher, in every era there will be new rules to protect QBs.  they whines about QBs of the 8-s being soft b/c they didn't have to face the rules of the 60s and 70s but as guys keep getting bigger, stronger, faster they have to adjust rules to save lives.  if guys of today hit guys in the 70s the way they hit then there would numerous deaths per season.

LT is the best defensive player I have ever seen but there are great players in every era.  

The AFC was brutal in the 80s and Joe did have a better D than Brady so he had more backup.  The Seattle D that Brady led to 14 4th qtr pts against was one of the best D's in history and as great as Montana was in SBs he was held to leading his O to 3 pts in a game twice(once he was knocked out of but they were terrible while he was in there) and he was benched in another playoff game.

 

BB has coached his entire career in the FA era, w/o Brady he has coached 7+ seasons and made the playoffs ONCE as a wild card and got crushed in div round.  it's Brady.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On January 16, 2017 at 8:01 AM, JiF said:

Brady was along for the ride for those first 3 SB wins.

Rodgers is literally 10x more talented than Brady.  Like, its not even close.  Brady is a stiff who throws the balls 5-7 yards all game long, he's a huge pussy and he and his team are proven cheaters.  

Aaron Rodgers does sh*t Brady could never dream of doing and doesnt cheat doing it. 

People weighing the SB's are being silly IMO.

It's like saying Eli Manning is/was better than Dan Marino because of rings. 

Do you still stand by this post ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...