I don't collect this set as I don't collect any cards from 1990 to present, so I really could care less about who gets in this set, and I agree, I think you should wait until a player is a LOCK HOF'er before adding them to any set like this.
Having said that, it's funny, almost comical, that anyone would rate Roethlisberger over Rodgers, right now if their careers ended.
I'll use the Unitas over Starr argument in the other thread in reverse here.
Rodgers HAS the better numbers in ALL categories, two MVP's, better playoff numbers too, more pro bowls, and a 10 point higher QB career passer rating. Rodgers just had his worst YEAR by far in 2015 and still put up a QB rating of 92.7, which is very close to Ben's CAREER mark of 94.0.
Rodgers is the HIGHEST rated QB in NFL history.
Int ratio : Ben 2-1, Rodgers 4-1. HUGE difference.
Better running QB, Rodgers hands down.
W-L record, a dead even heat right now percentage wise.
Ben 4 pro bowls in 12 years as a starter. Rodgers 5 pro bowls in 8 years as a starter.
Ben has led the Steelers to five 10+ win seasons. That's 5 out of 12 years. Rodgers has led the Pack to six 10+ win seasons. That's 6 out of 8 years.
Playoff rating, Ben's is 10 point LOWER than his regular rating. Rodgers rating is 6 points lower.
Ben has two years he's passed for over 30 TDs in a year (12 years as a starter). Rodgers has five years over 30 TD's passes (in 8 years as a starter).
Some might thing Rodgers throws a ton more per game than Ben. Not true. Ben 31.7 Att per game, Rodgers 33.5 Att. per game.
Ben has 15 more total TD passes than Rodgers in his career. Fine. It only took him 4 more years as a starter and 1376 more attempts to get those 15 extra TD's.
The ONLY area Ben has the edge over Rodgers right now in is rings, with 2 to 1. In the Unitas/Starr comparison, rings or winning championships didn't matter much there, so it shouldn't matter much here either.
So I'll go with the old 'eye test' and say that Rodgers has revolutionized the way a modern QB plays the game now with his accuracy, arm strength, his ability to move around in the pocket, ball handling, and his ultra low turnover frequency which happens to be the BEST in NFL history.
Finally, look at that All-Time QB lists. Right now Rodgers is superior to at least 10 QB's on that list. Give him another 3-4 years and he's in the top 10 all-time.
Moon, Griese, Namath, Blanda, Van Brocklin, Kelly, Stabler, Aikman, Warner, you actually believe any of these QB's are better than Rodgers right now? Are you insane?
Rodgers weaken the list?? Really??
I gotta say, every time you make outrageous posts like this you just make yourself look questionable in your grasp of the game of Football. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so keep believing whatever you type here is the way things really are.
I think the disconnect here is that you don't have a very good grasp on how players are elected to the HOF. And how QB's are generally graded of the course of a career.
Based on your argument, Cam Newton is the greatest QB of all-time? What a guy does in one year, or 3 years, or 5 years isn't going to get him elected to the HOF. It also doesn't make him an all time great. SUSTAINED, CONSISTENT play is needed.
I'll give the numbers that put Ben over Rodgers if both were up for HOF vote tomorrow.
As far as mentioning this other QBs as not as good as Rodgers "right now"? Tells me you still aren't able to compare QBs of different eras correctly. Warner is the most recent of the guys you listed. Both are 2 time MVPs, lets take their best MVP season and compare them.
Warner 2001. in 2001, Warner led the league in passing yards with 4830, the 5th best QB of that season had 3828. 1000 more than the 5th QB. He led the league in TD with 36, #5 guy had 26.
Rodgers 2011. Rodgers was 5th in the league in passing yards, 800 behind the leader. He was 2nd in the league in passing TDs with 45. #5 guy had 31.
Kurt Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season..Its not even close. Rodgers has bigger numbers, but so does EVERY OTHER starting QB in 2011 vs. 2001..lolol In fact, I can't find ANY SEASON in which Rodgers led the league in any quantifiable passing statistic. He's led in passer rating, which means absolutely ZERO to HOF voters. Just as Ken Anderson.
Again, much respect to your Packer faithfulness, but I believe it to be clouding your judgement a bit. Which is normal for the "casual" fan BTW. But for others who study the game a bit deeper than worthless QB rating of a QB with only 119 starts in the league, we are able to look a little more big picture and understand what it takes to be elected to the HOF and to be labelled one of the greatest of all time. Rodgers is ON THE PATH, but need to have a few better seasons than the one he just had, or another ring or two before he gets to be in that conversation. He retires today, his HOF odds are very very low. I'm sorry, but that's just the nature of the beast. Longevity and sustained greatness are necessary, thus we don't elect Cam Newton already bc of the season he just put up....
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I think the disconnect here is that you don't have a very good grasp on how players are elected to the HOF. And how QB's are generally graded of the course of a career.
Based on your argument, Cam Newton is the greatest QB of all-time? What a guy does in one year, or 3 years, or 5 years isn't going to get him elected to the HOF. It also doesn't make him an all time great. SUSTAINED, CONSISTENT play is needed.
I'll give the numbers that put Ben over Rodgers if both were up for HOF vote tomorrow.
As far as mentioning this other QBs as not as good as Rodgers "right now"? Tells me you still aren't able to compare QBs of different eras correctly. Warner is the most recent of the guys you listed. Both are 2 time MVPs, lets take their best MVP season and compare them.
Warner 2001. in 2001, Warner led the league in passing yards with 4830, the 5th best QB of that season had 3828. 1000 more than the 5th QB. He led the league in TD with 36, #5 guy had 26.
Rodgers 2011. Rodgers was 5th in the league in passing yards, 800 behind the leader. He was 2nd in the league in passing TDs with 45. #5 guy had 31.
Kurt Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season..Its not even close. Rodgers has bigger numbers, but so does EVERY OTHER starting QB in 2011 vs. 2001..lolol In fact, I can't find ANY SEASON in which Rodgers led the league in any quantifiable passing statistic. He's led in passer rating, which means absolutely ZERO to HOF voters. Just as Ken Anderson.
Again, much respect to your Packer faithfulness, but I believe it to be clouding your judgement a bit. Which is normal for the "casual" fan BTW. But for others who study the game a bit deeper than worthless QB rating of a QB with only 119 starts in the league, we are able to look a little more big picture and understand what it takes to be elected to the HOF and to be labelled one of the greatest of all time. Rodgers is ON THE PATH, but need to have a few better seasons than the one he just had, or another ring or two before he gets to be in that conversation. He retires today, his HOF odds are very very low. I'm sorry, but that's just the nature of the beast. Longevity and sustained greatness are necessary, thus we don't elect Cam Newton already bc of the season he just put up....
Its pretty clear that I am a Packers fan...but I will respond anyway.
One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
That said this set is call All Time Great QBs...not All Time Great HOF QBs, or HOF QBs. I know that you feel all these sets should just be for HOFers, and maybe it should since it says All Time Great in the title...but then again maybe the title should be just HOF QBs. However, there are a few time All Time greats that aren't in the HOF...including players that have been voted as All Decade Team members by the HOF voters. So, I see no reason why neither should be left off of this set. Both, even if they died tomorrow and dont make the HOF would still be consider in that All-Time Great status even if they dont make the HOF.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
The recent problem with the All-Time great sets is that anyone can be nominated and as long as they get 1 more "yes" vote than "no" vote, they're in.
So when I popular player gets put to a vote (ala Aaron Rodgers), most voters opt for "yes".
The thinking is "Why not, he's one of the top QB's now and should get into the set." Instead of waiting till the players career is over and seeing how he compares to the other greats over the decades and his peers. With discussions and debates on this board.
Jradke4 hit the nail on the head. The issue is that there is not a universally accepted definition of "all time great." Jasp and some others seem to define it as the cream of the crop, a smaller subset within the HOF. Nothing wrong with that. But others might define "all time greats" as HOFers and "almost HOFers." Show me where it says that's wrong. Again, there is no universally accepted definition of "all time great."
The All-Time Great set was never meant to be a subset..It is a place you can add Great players before they are elected to the HOF. I agree, there is no definition, its why there is a voting system on the set.
We each are allowed to form our own opinions on what determines an all-time great, what determines your top 10 QBs all-time, etc, etc. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't make them wrong. I would assume my opinions would be treated in the same manner, but I do enjoy a good debate on these subjects and will speak my opinion on them.
That being said, I'd find it very tough to call a player one of the greatest ever at their position yet they can't make the HOF. There are exceptions...Ken Stabler is one. He JUST got elected, but he's been on the set for what, 14 years or so now? So, that pretty much dispells the argument that I think it is a HOF subset.
I, like Frank, do believe that these sets, most of which I and some of the other old timers here created many moons ago have become watered down over the years...As new collectors join, new opinions come. Ones that believe an inclusive set of 100+ "All-time Great" QBs is warranted. This is the reason I no longer collect the sets. The days of all of us here, the core guys voting and discussing our opinions similar to what they do at the HOF Selection Meetings are long over. Now, its random collectors requesting their current favorite players to the set well before the player is ready to be added. So you end up with guys like Patrick Willis and Calvin Johnson on the set that now, with an unexpected early retirement no longer are deserving.
We saw it years back in this very All-Time QB set...Kurt Warner got added to the set in like 2002 or 2003...WELL before he should have been...Then he had the stretch of years that essentially had tarnished his legacy and Kurt Warner was voted OFF the All-Time QB set. Most of us on the message board didnt like it, even though at the time it was the correct call, which led to most of us being a little more careful on who we voted to add...There really isnt a downside to waiting until a player is TRULY deserving...Not almost deserving, but truly deserving..The only downside to waiting is that a collector cant capitalize on the value of a card he owns by striking while the iron is hot so to speak...Not applying this to anyone in this discussion, just making the point that other than that reason, why not wait until there is NO DOUBT?
I said in my first post on the subject I believe Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers are ON THE PATH to both the HOF as well as being worthy of being added to the All-Time QB set...But why not at least let their career play out to a point where they are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees level players in which there is NO DOUBT they are deserving?
Just don't understand the logic or need to rush into a hasty decision on guys...
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Originally posted by: jradke4 One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
Completely disagree with this...If the history of the NFL were being written today, Rodgers would be a footnote at best...This chapter would star Peyton Manning and Tom Brady at QB...After then you'd get a few sentences on Drew Brees and Kurt Warner...Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers would barely warrant a mention IMO. Manning and Brady are going to be considered among the all-time greats for a LONG time...Brees and Warner not on their level, but IMO have better stories than Rodgers or Big Ben at this point...Rodgers has plenty of time left to get more notice in this chapter, but if writing today? He's maybe 5th in line, I'd say 6th behind Ben.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
We saw it years back in this very All-Time QB set...Kurt Warner got added to the set in like 2002 or 2003...WELL before he should have been...Then he had the stretch of years that essentially had tarnished his legacy and Kurt Warner was voted OFF the All-Time QB set. Most of us on the message board didnt like it, even though at the time it was the correct call, which led to most of us being a little more careful on who we voted to add...There really isnt a downside to waiting until a player is TRULY deserving...Not almost deserving, but truly deserving..The only downside to waiting is that a collector cant capitalize on the value of a card he owns by striking while the iron is hot so to speak...Not applying this to anyone in this discussion, just making the point that other than that reason, why not wait until there is NO DOUBT?
Jason- The Kurt Warner example is the one I always return to. He was on his way and was added to the set. Had a few bad seasons and was removed, than re-added when he landed with the Cardinals and the end of his career. A player should be a no doubt addition, or if he's debatable...debated.
Using Jason's examples of Patrick Willis and Cal. Johnson, both were on their way to all-time greatness, but with their early retirements I'm not so sure. Loved watching them play, but I think both needed 2-4 more years.
We're seeing this throughout the all the All-Time great sets. J. Peppers in the defense set. S.Smith in the WR set. But nowhere is it more watered down than in the All-time RB's set. It was decided at one point that if you had 10,000 yds career rushing, you were automatically inserted into the set. Now you have Warrick Dunn, Fred Taylor, Tiki Barber in the set. Can you really have an All-Time Great RB conversation and say they are "somewhat" equal to Jim Brown, Walter Payton and Emmitt Smith??
Originally posted by: jradke4 One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
Completely disagree with this...If the history of the NFL were being written today, Rodgers would be a footnote at best...This chapter would star Peyton Manning and Tom Brady at QB...After then you'd get a few sentences on Drew Brees and Kurt Warner...Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers would barely warrant a mention IMO. Manning and Brady are going to be considered among the all-time greats for a LONG time...Brees and Warner not on their level, but IMO have better stories than Rodgers or Big Ben at this point...Rodgers has plenty of time left to get more notice in this chapter, but if writing today? He's maybe 5th in line, I'd say 6th behind Ben.
not sure if you noticed but i did say that rodgers wouldn't be in that category yet...but is getting there. so actually we do agree.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
Originally posted by: jradke4 One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
Completely disagree with this...If the history of the NFL were being written today, Rodgers would be a footnote at best...This chapter would star Peyton Manning and Tom Brady at QB...After then you'd get a few sentences on Drew Brees and Kurt Warner...Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers would barely warrant a mention IMO. Manning and Brady are going to be considered among the all-time greats for a LONG time...Brees and Warner not on their level, but IMO have better stories than Rodgers or Big Ben at this point...Rodgers has plenty of time left to get more notice in this chapter, but if writing today? He's maybe 5th in line, I'd say 6th behind Ben.
not sure if you noticed but i did say that rodgers wouldn't be in that category yet...but is getting there. so actually we do agree.
Then I stand corrected. Your point was a valid one to make about the voters and I wanted to comment on it. But we do in fact agree that Rodgers isn't in that conversation yet. And as such, shouldn't really be on the All-Time QB set or in the conversation for it yet either...Give him a few more big years and he WILL be worthy of debate, and maybe even become a slam dunk..
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Hey Jasp, didn't Warner ONLY start 116 games at QB? Yet you call him a 'lock HOF'er' in other threads.
How does playing 116 games make Warner a 'lock', yet Rodgers has started 119 games in his career and you give him only a 10-20% chance of making the HOF if his career ended today? The number of games played logic just doesn't add up. I think you are simply a Packers hater deep down. Just admit it. We all have our favorites.
I'm a Packers fan yes, but a bigger 49ers fan really. So no bias here. Just the facts and numbers.
I think Kurt Warner is a future HOF QB, and hopefully he makes it next year. He had some really great years, and some really poor years in his career. But overall, he's a HOF'er. He also might be the best passer in playoff history.
Rodgers record so far, is clearly as good, if not better than Warner's career. Rodgers has better numbers in all categories.
You posted this : Kurt Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season..Its not even close. Rodgers has bigger numbers, but so does EVERY OTHER starting QB in 2011 vs. 2001..lolol ...
Most true football experts and historians would place Rodgers sublime 2011 season as the greatest season of quarterbacking in NFL history.
A 15-1 record, All-Pro, MVP, the HIGHEST single season QB rating at 122.5, 45/6 TD to Ints, 4643 yards, he LED THE LEAGUE in TD pct. at a whopping 9.0, which is better than ANY season ever for Warner. Rodgers also LED the league at 9.2 avg. gain. Oh yeah, and he sat out the last game of the year against the Lions. So he easily could have had even better total numbers. Brees led the league is passing yardage that year, breaking Marino's yearly mark, so I guess you would've put Brees as the MVP that year, since you're really into yardage totals. So you're into quantity and not quality. I get that, I just don't understand it.
In Rodgers' 2011 nearly perfect season, the Packers two top rushers were Ryan Grant with 559 yards and 2 TD, and James Starks with 578 and 1 TD. So it's not like the Packers had a HOF threat at RB to rely on, unlike Warner who had HOF'er Marshall Faulk during his big years.
The 2011 Packers team averaged 35.0 points per game that year, 1st in the league. They allowed 22.4 ppg (19th). They were steam rolling teams that year and other teams were playing from behind. Their offense was off the charts due to Rodgers, their defense was middle of the road. They played five games in domes, 11 outside.
So Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season? I highly doubt that. Warner played most of his games that year (11), on turf inside under perfect conditions. He did have a really great year, it's one of the best all-time, but clearly not a slam dunk 'best ever' like you want us to believe, just because you say so. In 1999, the Rams avg. 32.9 (1st), allowing 15.1 (4th rated). they had a much better defense than the Packers team in 2011.
Warner was throwing to stud WR's Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce those years. Two of the best at their position. Both are probably just under the HOF ladder. They're close but I don't think they quite make the Hall. He also had HOF'er Marshall Faulk at RB. Faulk was the best RB in the game at that point. Warner clearly had the better weapons and defense in his great 1999 season.
Rodgers' weapons in 2011 or even throughtout his career are not up to the Rams during the two big Warner years. Rodgers has been throwing to a few pro bowl WR's in Nelson, Jennings, Cobb, an excellent slot WR in Driver, TE Finley, and James Jones. All very good players, but not a single one of them will be in the HOF. Same with the RB's that played with Rodgers. They are Ryan Grant, James Starks, Alex Green (he led the Packers in rushing in 2012 with under 500 yards!), Dujuan Harris, a few Cedric Benson games, and overweight Eddie Lacy. Again, not a single HOF'er in that RB group. I don't see a single future HOF'er in the above group.
You don't like QB rating either? I wonder why since it's been used to evaluate all QB's using their actual passing statistics. It's a pretty fair system really. It doesn't use an 'eye test' to evaluate, it uses actual data. Usually the higher rated QB's tend to be on the more winning teams. Sure there's a few exceptions to this, but for the most part it rates the QB's evenly without bias, just on passing. It's not perfect by any means. It doesn't take into account opponents defenses, dropped passes by receivers, weather and or playing conditions, the team's OL, and rushing attacks. It's just based on what a QB does with the ball once snapped.
Think of this, Rodgers just had his worst year, yet he still got the Packers to a 10-6 mark and the playoffs, 3821 yards, 31 TDs, 8 ints., rating 92.7 . This was his worst year. This is Kurt Warner's worst year, 2002, 0-6 record, 1431 yards, 3 TD's , 11 Int's, a rating of 67.4. Benched for Marc Bulger who then went 6-1 as a starter the rest of the way.
Not sure why you mention Cam Newton. He did have a great year in 2015. An MVP year. But he wouldn't even be cosidered a HOF candidate for at least another 10-12 years.
Finally, during the last eight years, a pretty long and sustained time to judge passers, Aaron Rodgers name is ALWAYS mentioned among the top THREE QB's in the NFL. Let's be fair and say TOP FOUR, I don't want to slight Drew Brees.
So you have P. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, and Brees.
Most football experts, dudes on ESPN, and game announcers say that If they were to select one player to start a team with, they would select Aaron Rodgers, given his age and what's he's accomplished so far in his stellar career. He's at the mid-way point in his career and he's already put up HOF numbers.
I've never heard Roethlisberger's name mentioned in the Top four over these past eight years. Except for maybe diehard Steelers fans and you. I guess those extra 50 starts and 15 more TD passes he's thrown are enough to push him over Rodgers in your eyes, hey?
I'm not a Packers hater in any way shape or form. Lots of Packer autos and memorabilia hanging in my house...Just a realist and a fan of football history.
I just have to laugh everytime I hear someone, and its usually one of the hacks on TV, every season calling someone the greatest season they've ever seen, blah blah blah...Saying Rodgers 2011 season was the greatest ever just hilarious. Seems obvious the issue or disagree we mainly have is that you are unable to properly compare players of different eras. I've tried to give my point of view and assist you by telling you how most Pro Football historians do it. Which is by comparing the player first vs. players of his own era. OF COURSE Rodgers has bigger numbers, I guess you haven't noticed that the entire NFL has bigger passing numbers during Rodgers time though, huh? Alrighty then...lol
You keep trying to pigeon hole me into specific categories and what not..Like passing yards, if someone had more they must be better, etc...As I've told you a few times now, its about seeing the big picture...A stat-line, a winning %, awards and credentials, the eye test, etc...Every single one of these things play a part in understanding holistically what constitutes a HOFer or an All-Time Great player. Most of how I view and rank these guys isn't based on my opinion, but rather in studying the opinions and voting habits of HOF voters over the years. If you were to look back through many of my posts on the message board over the years you would see that much of my opinion on who us a HOFer and such is based on how I KNOW HOF voters feel and how they evaluate and compare players of different eras.
I mentioned QB Rating, because I KNOW for a fact that the majority of HOF voters don't look at it or take it into much consideration when voting on a QB. Don't take my word for it though, e-mail a few of them and ask them yourself. It is a mostly meaningless stat.
As far as Kurt Warner goes, he didn't become a lock HOFer until he took a 2nd team to the Super Bowl (Cardinals). Had he retired after all his Rams years and MVPs, big numbers, etc, he was NOT a HOFer, nor an All-time Great....Its why he actually got VOTED OFF the All-Time Great QB set...But helping to revive 2 longtime loser franchises, coming from bagging groceries gave his backstory much more merit than the avg. QB. His stats and awards/accolades are good enough to be elected, but without the backstory of what he accomplished, he wouldn't be going into the HOF as he will eventually do.
This goes right back into my initial post here which said WHY NOT WAIT? Still haven't heard a valid answer from anyone on why Rodgers OR Big Ben needed to be on the set already..They are neither LOCK HOFers if they reitred tomorrow. They are neither top 30 QBs of all-time id they retired tomorrow. They are both close, and both have a good chance to be HOFers and top 30 QBs within the next few years if they can sustain their play...So what the heck is the rush to add them prematurely to these sets? Why risk adding a guy (Patrick Willis and Calvin Johnson examples) before you can truly evaluate him as deserving without question?
You haven't heard Ben mentioned as a top 4 QB in the past 8 years? Not sure where you've been..He's absolutely been in that conversation..In fact, if you go back 10 years, from 2006-2010, he was often mentioned as the #3 QB behind Peyton and Brady. If Rodgers is the 4th best QB of the past 10 years, even putting him over Ben I'm not sure that makes him a HOFer just yet...Nor does it make him one of the greatest QBs of all-time...Just because all the passing number are skewed in this era doesn't mean these numbers make the current players better than guys with lesser numbers who played in a less pass happy era..Again, COMPARE THEM TO THEIR PEERS FIRST.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Calvin, Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers will all be in the HOF. As for the top 30 QB's of all time and Rodgers not being in it is laughable at best.
There are 30 QB's on the HOF (Herber is listed as a tailback but clearly was a QB)
Here they are in no particular order (I actually tried to name them without looking up and I missed one - FINKS)
Brett Favre Dan Marino John Elway Fran Tarkenton Joe Montana Johnny Unitas Steve Young Warren Moon Y.A. Tittle Troy Aikman Sid Luckman Bob Waterfield Arnie Herber Bob Griese Bart Starr Norm Van Brocklin Otto Graham Roger Staubach Sammy Baugh Terry Bradshaw Ken Stabler Joe Namath George Blanda Bobby Layne Len Dawson Jim Kelly Dan Fouts Sonny Jurgensen Jim Finks
How many of these HOFers does Rodgers beat out on the eye test? I say at least 7 - Waterfield, Finks, Herber, Griese, Stabler, Namath and Blanda.
That puts him at 23rd but we have current players and senior candidates that garner attention to see if Rodgers is ahead of them in the eye test. I came up with 14 QBs that make this list.
Kurt Warner Ben Roethlisberger Philip Rivers Drew Bledsoe Eli Manning Boomer Esiason Donovan McNabb Tony Romo Ken Anderson Jack Kemp Drew Brees Tom Brady Peyton Manning Jim Plunkett
On the list above Rodgers wins the eye test against 10 of them. He loses only to Warner, Brees, Brady and Manning (Peyton)
So 23 HOF plus 4 Non HOF puts Rodgers at 28th on my list.
Now some of you may whine about Eli, and Big Ben. Fine, put them in and he is still #30 but we all know he is 28th. :-)
So to answer the question "Is Aaron Rodgers one of the 30th best QB's in NFL history?" The answer is yes.
IMO, he ABSOLUTELY does not belong above Stabler or Namath...You can quote me on all the stat lines you want, but If all 3 of these guys played during the same era, Rodgers wouldn't hold a candle to the other two..Sorry...Griese is debatable, but trying to err on your side of the debate here, so I'll even let him go ahead of Griese...Heck even put him ahead of Big ben...That puts him what 29th on my list? On the set (take away Rodgers) there are 30 QBs....So based on your ranking 28th and my ranking 29th, he's a borderline addition AT BEST..One with an unfinished career and unwritten chapters...Why not wait? Still don;t get it...
Calvin Johnson makes the HOF if he never plays again? Hmmm, I dont know about that...He might,but his odds are well below 50/50, which certainly doesnt make him a lock HOF, which is what the modern Future HOF set is supposed to be comprised of. Used as a feeder set to the HOF set.
Not sure what you are basing that opinion on with Calvin...He's not going to stack up favorably in this era 5 years from now...He never won much either...
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Nice to see some spirited football discussion! I think Calvin Johnson is questionable as a HOF'er if he does indeed retire. He really only had 4 big years, only had 100 catches once and finished with fairly pedestrian running numbers...if he is indeed done. As I said earlier in this thread, Aaron Rodgers has already punched his ticket to Canton. I don't think there's anything he could do at this point to not be a first-ballot HOF'er - and I personally don't even like the guy. But facts is facts. 257 TDs against just 65 INTs is video game-esque. And it's not like he just started playing. He has 32,399 passing yards. I would take him in a nanosecond over Favre, Stabler, Namath, Aikman, Kelly and a few other QBs already in the HOF.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I do not have a dog in the fight, I am just curious of why he is not above Stabler or Namath? i know the rules of today and the game play wears heavily in favor of today's qb, and all of the old timers called their own plays and were natural leaders, but the athleticism of the past era does not compare with the athleticism of today. Do not get me wrong, I prefer the NFL of the 50s-80s. I just think that most of he guys from that era are not the athletes we see now. Not all, most. So basically what I am asking is what vaults the Snake and Namath above Rodgers? I get longevity on Manning, Brees and of course Brady from this era. Just want to see what the argument is, because to tell you the truth, I hold Stabler and Namath in high esteem, and would like a well thought out argument I could reference to point out why they are greater than Rodgers
Stabler- Led league in TDs twice, top 3 in the NFL 3 times. Never led the league in yards per attempt, top 3 in the NFL 4 times Led League in completion % twice, top 3 in the NFL 4 times ----------------Led league in Comebacks TWICE, top 3 in the NFL 4 times--------------------- ----------------Led League in game winning drives THREE TIMES, top 3 in the NFL 4 times------------- 1974 MVP, 1976 Player of the Year, Super Bowl win
Rodgers- Never led the league in TDs, top 3 in the NFL 3 times Led league in yards per attempt once, Top 3 in the NFL 4 times Never led the league in completion %, top 3 in the NFL 2 times -----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in the NFL in comebacks------------------ -----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in game winning drives ------------------- 2001 and 2014 MVP, Super Bowl win, Super Bowl MVP
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Originally posted by: JasP24 Stabler- Led league in TDs twice, top 3 in the NFL 3 times. Never led the league in yards per attempt, top 3 in the NFL 4 times Led League in completion % twice, top 3 in the NFL 4 times ----------------Led league in Comebacks TWICE, top 3 in the NFL 4 times--------------------- ----------------Led League in game winning drives THREE TIMES, top 3 in the NFL 4 times------------- 1974 MVP, 1976 Player of the Year, Super Bowl win
Rodgers- Never led the league in TDs, top 3 in the NFL 3 times Led league in yards per attempt once, Top 3 in the NFL 4 times Never led the league in completion %, top 3 in the NFL 2 times -----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in the NFL in comebacks------------------ -----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in game winning drives ------------------- 2001 and 2014 MVP, Super Bowl win, Super Bowl MVP
Romo is one of the top leaders in comebacks. That stat means little to me. Maybe Rodgers did not have the opportunity for comebacks, because he played well enough early, so that and game winning drives is kind of a bs stat. No mention of Namath in your defense either
Sorry, was pressed for time...As you can see however, comebacks and game winning drives was not the only stat I posted...vs. his peers, Stabler put up some of the better stats of his era as well...You can look up their career numbers pretty easy, but the trick is not comparing Stabler's numbers to Rodgers...Because that is pointless, and anyone you know who tries to present that argument simply isn't using logic. You compare Stabler to the other QBs of his time, you compare Rodgers to the other QB's of his time..In particular stats lines and accolades.
Its human nature to inherently believe that the newest and most recent "thing" is the better "thing"...You have to allow your mind to be open to believing that a guy with what would be considered today as having ugly stats, maybe a guy you either never watched play or don't know much about could be better than a guy you've watched play every snap the past 10 years like we can in today's environment. It's not an easy process, but without it, you, nor anyone you may be debating this points with will "get it"...
No QB from the 1970s or earlier, short of Johnny U. put up the same type stats that guys put up today..Ive found that someone either understands why that is in totality, or they refuse to believe a 25 TD-15 INT season could in anyway possible equate to better QB play than a guy with 40 TD-10 INT..No matter what the rules were, what the style of gameplay was, or how much difference in their paychecks were/are you either understand or you don't..No one, myself included, will be able to dissuade that person from their beliefs. Its simply a lack of knowledge via lack of information, and its something that MLB does way better than the NFL does...And thats educate its fan base on the history of their game...
Does anyone on earth rank Barry Bonds over Babe Ruth when ranking the best long ball hitters of all-time? If you just look at the stat line, you'd have to, no? Yet, we understand the situation of todays game vs. Babe Ruth's era enough that we can discern the difference between what Babe did and what Barry did...Not just WHAT they did but HOW they did it...Unfortunately the NFL is all about the NOW players and leave so many of their great players out of their normal conversations that casual fans, or even semi-hardcore fans dont care, dislike, dismiss the players who paved the way for the league..Its sad really..If you ever get a chance to talk to some of the old time players, ask them how they feel about it...I have on many occasions and their answers can and will shock you.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Bill Walsh once said that Namath was “the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release I’ve ever seen.”
From 1965 to 1974 Joe Namath was the game’s among the top three quarterbacks in the game. Take a look at the stats of all quarterbacks over that ten-year period who attempted at least 1500 passes:
Even among his contemporaries, Namath’s completion percentage wasn’t very good. But he also was #1 in both sack rate and yards per completion, an incredibly difficult feat to pull off. Thanks to Namath’s incredibly fast release and his big arm, the Jets designed a vertical offense that was effective at moving the ball down the field. In the most basic form of passing measurement, Net Yards per Attempt, Namath ranked 1st by half a yard per attempt. In ANY/A, which includes a penalty for interceptions and a bonus for touchdowns, Namath falls just 0.01 ANY/A out of second place.
Namath’s career wasn’t one of the best ever, and it certainly wasn’t as good as it could have been. It’s well-documented that Namath was never able to fulfill his enormous potential because of a variety of injuries. But standing alone, even ignoring his post-season success, Namath’s numbers stand up as elite. He did throw too many interceptions, even for his era, although on more talented teams he would have likely been a more conservative passer. But for a decade, he was arguably the most dangerous passer in professional football, putting aside all the glamour and glitz and guarantees.
Credit this write up to Chase Stuart, a fellow Pro Football historian. One of the better Pro-Namath arguments I've heard over the years.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I love both Namath, and Stabler but both had incredibly short primes. both suffered terrible knee issues. I would tend to agree with you, but I think you had to watch them play in the era they played to truly appreciate them. i appreciate the attention to detail. I think that the arguments for Rodgers are valid though, and a mere difference of opinion
I never discounted Rodgers or his accomplishments to this point in his career..Only stating that the rest of his book is still unwritten..And that there is no downside to waiting before anointing him on the level of QBs who transcended their eras...
No reason to think Rodgers can't end his career as a top 10-20 QB of all-time...I think its unlikely he will become a top 10 all-timer, but certainly not impossible. His talent at this moment in time is among the best we have in the NFL, so lets see where he takes it from here...But at this point, unlike say a Manning or a Brady, he doesn't yet deserve to be mentioned or compared to the older legends of the game.
Just my opinion of course. I mean he's already on the QB set, so mostly a moot point.
Enjoyed refreshing my memory on Stabler and Namath. Was glad to have a reason to re-visit them again.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I am 56 y o and grew up in upstate NY with only one B & W TV and 3 channels. Also having to move the monkey ears antennae's around all the time
for reception. Local stations only showed local teams primarily. All you poor newbies out there with the NFL channel LOL.
That meant I saw the Jets play every week and saw a QB that could throw a 70 yard line drive for most of his career. I remember reading a book about Namath and the author claimed
Namath could throw "endzone to endzone." I would have to see that one to believe it !!!! Probably not far off though.
I have said many times here he is the one QB or even player you can throw out the stats on.
"Namath’s career wasn’t one of the best ever, and it certainly wasn’t as good as it could have been." is absolutely right.
He's not in my top list but he was the preeminent QB of his time. In today's game with an emphasis on pass rushing he would be a sitting duck with his lack of mobility.
I bet all the Namath hater's here are under 40 yo.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Probably very true Jay...Simply a lack of the NFL pushing its history. I mean, realistically does it have to? No, ratings through the roof regardless...But sure would be nice in case football ever hits a lull in fandom. Baseball was able to fall back on its history when it hit hard times.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Comments
and I agree, I think you should wait until a player is a LOCK HOF'er before adding them to any set like this.
Having said that, it's funny, almost comical, that anyone would rate Roethlisberger over Rodgers, right now if their careers ended.
I'll use the Unitas over Starr argument in the other thread in reverse here.
Rodgers HAS the better numbers in ALL categories, two MVP's, better playoff numbers too, more pro bowls, and a 10 point higher QB career passer rating.
Rodgers just had his worst YEAR by far in 2015 and still put up a QB rating of 92.7, which is very close to Ben's CAREER mark of 94.0.
Rodgers is the HIGHEST rated QB in NFL history.
Int ratio : Ben 2-1, Rodgers 4-1. HUGE difference.
Better running QB, Rodgers hands down.
W-L record, a dead even heat right now percentage wise.
Ben 4 pro bowls in 12 years as a starter.
Rodgers 5 pro bowls in 8 years as a starter.
Ben has led the Steelers to five 10+ win seasons. That's 5 out of 12 years.
Rodgers has led the Pack to six 10+ win seasons. That's 6 out of 8 years.
Playoff rating, Ben's is 10 point LOWER than his regular rating.
Rodgers rating is 6 points lower.
Ben has two years he's passed for over 30 TDs in a year (12 years as a starter).
Rodgers has five years over 30 TD's passes (in 8 years as a starter).
Some might thing Rodgers throws a ton more per game than Ben. Not true.
Ben 31.7 Att per game, Rodgers 33.5 Att. per game.
Ben has 15 more total TD passes than Rodgers in his career. Fine.
It only took him 4 more years as a starter and 1376 more attempts to get those 15 extra TD's.
The ONLY area Ben has the edge over Rodgers right now in is rings, with 2 to 1.
In the Unitas/Starr comparison, rings or winning championships didn't matter much there, so it shouldn't matter much here either.
So I'll go with the old 'eye test' and say that Rodgers has revolutionized the way a modern QB plays the game now
with his accuracy, arm strength, his ability to move around in the pocket, ball handling, and his ultra low turnover frequency which happens
to be the BEST in NFL history.
Finally, look at that All-Time QB lists. Right now Rodgers is superior to at least 10 QB's on that list.
Give him another 3-4 years and he's in the top 10 all-time.
Moon, Griese, Namath, Blanda, Van Brocklin, Kelly, Stabler, Aikman, Warner, you actually believe any of these QB's are better
than Rodgers right now? Are you insane?
Rodgers weaken the list?? Really??
I gotta say, every time you make outrageous posts like this you just make yourself look questionable in your grasp of the game of Football.
But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so keep believing whatever you type here is the way things really are.
I think the disconnect here is that you don't have a very good grasp on how players are elected to the HOF. And how QB's are generally graded of the course of a career.
Based on your argument, Cam Newton is the greatest QB of all-time? What a guy does in one year, or 3 years, or 5 years isn't going to get him elected to the HOF. It also doesn't make him an all time great. SUSTAINED, CONSISTENT play is needed.
I'll give the numbers that put Ben over Rodgers if both were up for HOF vote tomorrow.
Roethlisberger- Comp. 3476 Att. 5423 Yds 42995 TD 272
Rodgers- Comp. 2633 Att. 4047 Yds 32399 TD 257
NFL Starts- Ben 169, Rodgers 119
As far as mentioning this other QBs as not as good as Rodgers "right now"? Tells me you still aren't able to compare QBs of different eras correctly. Warner is the most recent of the guys you listed. Both are 2 time MVPs, lets take their best MVP season and compare them.
Warner 2001. in 2001, Warner led the league in passing yards with 4830, the 5th best QB of that season had 3828. 1000 more than the 5th QB.
He led the league in TD with 36, #5 guy had 26.
Rodgers 2011. Rodgers was 5th in the league in passing yards, 800 behind the leader.
He was 2nd in the league in passing TDs with 45. #5 guy had 31.
Kurt Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season..Its not even close. Rodgers has bigger numbers, but so does EVERY OTHER starting QB in 2011 vs. 2001..lolol
In fact, I can't find ANY SEASON in which Rodgers led the league in any quantifiable passing statistic. He's led in passer rating, which means absolutely ZERO to HOF voters. Just as Ken Anderson.
Again, much respect to your Packer faithfulness, but I believe it to be clouding your judgement a bit. Which is normal for the "casual" fan BTW. But for others who study the game a bit deeper than worthless QB rating of a QB with only 119 starts in the league, we are able to look a little more big picture and understand what it takes to be elected to the HOF and to be labelled one of the greatest of all time. Rodgers is ON THE PATH, but need to have a few better seasons than the one he just had, or another ring or two before he gets to be in that conversation. He retires today, his HOF odds are very very low. I'm sorry, but that's just the nature of the beast. Longevity and sustained greatness are necessary, thus we don't elect Cam Newton already bc of the season he just put up....
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
LOL
I think the disconnect here is that you don't have a very good grasp on how players are elected to the HOF. And how QB's are generally graded of the course of a career.
Based on your argument, Cam Newton is the greatest QB of all-time? What a guy does in one year, or 3 years, or 5 years isn't going to get him elected to the HOF. It also doesn't make him an all time great. SUSTAINED, CONSISTENT play is needed.
I'll give the numbers that put Ben over Rodgers if both were up for HOF vote tomorrow.
Roethlisberger- Comp. 3476 Att. 5423 Yds 42995 TD 272
Rodgers- Comp. 2633 Att. 4047 Yds 32399 TD 257
NFL Starts- Ben 169, Rodgers 119
As far as mentioning this other QBs as not as good as Rodgers "right now"? Tells me you still aren't able to compare QBs of different eras correctly. Warner is the most recent of the guys you listed. Both are 2 time MVPs, lets take their best MVP season and compare them.
Warner 2001. in 2001, Warner led the league in passing yards with 4830, the 5th best QB of that season had 3828. 1000 more than the 5th QB.
He led the league in TD with 36, #5 guy had 26.
Rodgers 2011. Rodgers was 5th in the league in passing yards, 800 behind the leader.
He was 2nd in the league in passing TDs with 45. #5 guy had 31.
Kurt Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season..Its not even close. Rodgers has bigger numbers, but so does EVERY OTHER starting QB in 2011 vs. 2001..lolol
In fact, I can't find ANY SEASON in which Rodgers led the league in any quantifiable passing statistic. He's led in passer rating, which means absolutely ZERO to HOF voters. Just as Ken Anderson.
Again, much respect to your Packer faithfulness, but I believe it to be clouding your judgement a bit. Which is normal for the "casual" fan BTW. But for others who study the game a bit deeper than worthless QB rating of a QB with only 119 starts in the league, we are able to look a little more big picture and understand what it takes to be elected to the HOF and to be labelled one of the greatest of all time. Rodgers is ON THE PATH, but need to have a few better seasons than the one he just had, or another ring or two before he gets to be in that conversation. He retires today, his HOF odds are very very low. I'm sorry, but that's just the nature of the beast. Longevity and sustained greatness are necessary, thus we don't elect Cam Newton already bc of the season he just put up....
Its pretty clear that I am a Packers fan...but I will respond anyway.
One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
That said this set is call All Time Great QBs...not All Time Great HOF QBs, or HOF QBs. I know that you feel all these sets should just be for HOFers, and maybe it should since it says All Time Great in the title...but then again maybe the title should be just HOF QBs. However, there are a few time All Time greats that aren't in the HOF...including players that have been voted as All Decade Team members by the HOF voters. So, I see no reason why neither should be left off of this set. Both, even if they died tomorrow and dont make the HOF would still be consider in that All-Time Great status even if they dont make the HOF.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
So when I popular player gets put to a vote (ala Aaron Rodgers), most voters opt for "yes".
The thinking is "Why not, he's one of the top QB's now and should get into the set." Instead of waiting till the players career is over and seeing how he compares to the other greats over the decades and his peers. With discussions and debates on this board.
We each are allowed to form our own opinions on what determines an all-time great, what determines your top 10 QBs all-time, etc, etc. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't make them wrong. I would assume my opinions would be treated in the same manner, but I do enjoy a good debate on these subjects and will speak my opinion on them.
That being said, I'd find it very tough to call a player one of the greatest ever at their position yet they can't make the HOF. There are exceptions...Ken Stabler is one. He JUST got elected, but he's been on the set for what, 14 years or so now? So, that pretty much dispells the argument that I think it is a HOF subset.
I, like Frank, do believe that these sets, most of which I and some of the other old timers here created many moons ago have become watered down over the years...As new collectors join, new opinions come. Ones that believe an inclusive set of 100+ "All-time Great" QBs is warranted. This is the reason I no longer collect the sets. The days of all of us here, the core guys voting and discussing our opinions similar to what they do at the HOF Selection Meetings are long over. Now, its random collectors requesting their current favorite players to the set well before the player is ready to be added. So you end up with guys like Patrick Willis and Calvin Johnson on the set that now, with an unexpected early retirement no longer are deserving.
We saw it years back in this very All-Time QB set...Kurt Warner got added to the set in like 2002 or 2003...WELL before he should have been...Then he had the stretch of years that essentially had tarnished his legacy and Kurt Warner was voted OFF the All-Time QB set. Most of us on the message board didnt like it, even though at the time it was the correct call, which led to most of us being a little more careful on who we voted to add...There really isnt a downside to waiting until a player is TRULY deserving...Not almost deserving, but truly deserving..The only downside to waiting is that a collector cant capitalize on the value of a card he owns by striking while the iron is hot so to speak...Not applying this to anyone in this discussion, just making the point that other than that reason, why not wait until there is NO DOUBT?
I said in my first post on the subject I believe Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers are ON THE PATH to both the HOF as well as being worthy of being added to the All-Time QB set...But why not at least let their career play out to a point where they are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees level players in which there is NO DOUBT they are deserving?
Just don't understand the logic or need to rush into a hasty decision on guys...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
Completely disagree with this...If the history of the NFL were being written today, Rodgers would be a footnote at best...This chapter would star Peyton Manning and Tom Brady at QB...After then you'd get a few sentences on Drew Brees and Kurt Warner...Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers would barely warrant a mention IMO. Manning and Brady are going to be considered among the all-time greats for a LONG time...Brees and Warner not on their level, but IMO have better stories than Rodgers or Big Ben at this point...Rodgers has plenty of time left to get more notice in this chapter, but if writing today? He's maybe 5th in line, I'd say 6th behind Ben.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
We saw it years back in this very All-Time QB set...Kurt Warner got added to the set in like 2002 or 2003...WELL before he should have been...Then he had the stretch of years that essentially had tarnished his legacy and Kurt Warner was voted OFF the All-Time QB set. Most of us on the message board didnt like it, even though at the time it was the correct call, which led to most of us being a little more careful on who we voted to add...There really isnt a downside to waiting until a player is TRULY deserving...Not almost deserving, but truly deserving..The only downside to waiting is that a collector cant capitalize on the value of a card he owns by striking while the iron is hot so to speak...Not applying this to anyone in this discussion, just making the point that other than that reason, why not wait until there is NO DOUBT?
Jason- The Kurt Warner example is the one I always return to. He was on his way and was added to the set. Had a few bad seasons and was removed, than re-added when he landed with the Cardinals and the end of his career. A player should be a no doubt addition, or if he's debatable...debated.
Using Jason's examples of Patrick Willis and Cal. Johnson, both were on their way to all-time greatness, but with their early retirements I'm not so sure. Loved watching them play, but I think both needed 2-4 more years.
We're seeing this throughout the all the All-Time great sets. J. Peppers in the defense set.
S.Smith in the WR set.
But nowhere is it more watered down than in the All-time RB's set. It was decided at one point that if you had 10,000 yds career rushing, you were automatically inserted into the set. Now you have Warrick Dunn, Fred Taylor, Tiki Barber in the set. Can you really have an All-Time Great RB conversation and say they are "somewhat" equal to Jim Brown, Walter Payton and Emmitt Smith??
One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
Completely disagree with this...If the history of the NFL were being written today, Rodgers would be a footnote at best...This chapter would star Peyton Manning and Tom Brady at QB...After then you'd get a few sentences on Drew Brees and Kurt Warner...Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers would barely warrant a mention IMO. Manning and Brady are going to be considered among the all-time greats for a LONG time...Brees and Warner not on their level, but IMO have better stories than Rodgers or Big Ben at this point...Rodgers has plenty of time left to get more notice in this chapter, but if writing today? He's maybe 5th in line, I'd say 6th behind Ben.
not sure if you noticed but i did say that rodgers wouldn't be in that category yet...but is getting there. so actually we do agree.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
One thing that I have read by a few writers that write about the HOF and vote for it, is that one of the questions they ask before they vote on someone for the HOF is whether or not the history of the NFL can be written without mentioning the player they are voting on. Now clearly its not the only thing those voters vote on but for them it what makes a player a lock. Is Rodgers in that category, no but he is close. It is getting harder to write the history of the NFL in particular this current time without including a two time league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and a two time first team All-Pro.
Completely disagree with this...If the history of the NFL were being written today, Rodgers would be a footnote at best...This chapter would star Peyton Manning and Tom Brady at QB...After then you'd get a few sentences on Drew Brees and Kurt Warner...Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers would barely warrant a mention IMO. Manning and Brady are going to be considered among the all-time greats for a LONG time...Brees and Warner not on their level, but IMO have better stories than Rodgers or Big Ben at this point...Rodgers has plenty of time left to get more notice in this chapter, but if writing today? He's maybe 5th in line, I'd say 6th behind Ben.
not sure if you noticed but i did say that rodgers wouldn't be in that category yet...but is getting there. so actually we do agree.
Then I stand corrected. Your point was a valid one to make about the voters and I wanted to comment on it. But we do in fact agree that Rodgers isn't in that conversation yet. And as such, shouldn't really be on the All-Time QB set or in the conversation for it yet either...Give him a few more big years and he WILL be worthy of debate, and maybe even become a slam dunk..
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
How does playing 116 games make Warner a 'lock', yet Rodgers has started 119 games in his career and you
give him only a 10-20% chance of making the HOF if his career ended today? The number of games played logic just
doesn't add up. I think you are simply a Packers hater deep down. Just admit it. We all have our favorites.
I'm a Packers fan yes, but a bigger 49ers fan really. So no bias here. Just the facts and numbers.
I think Kurt Warner is a future HOF QB, and hopefully he makes it next year. He had some really great years, and some really poor years in his career.
But overall, he's a HOF'er. He also might be the best passer in playoff history.
Rodgers record so far, is clearly as good, if not better than Warner's career.
Rodgers has better numbers in all categories.
You posted this : Kurt Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season..Its not even close. Rodgers has bigger numbers, but so does EVERY OTHER starting QB in 2011 vs. 2001..lolol ...
Most true football experts and historians would place Rodgers sublime 2011 season as the greatest season of quarterbacking in NFL history.
A 15-1 record, All-Pro, MVP, the HIGHEST single season QB rating at 122.5, 45/6 TD to Ints, 4643 yards, he LED THE LEAGUE in TD pct. at a
whopping 9.0, which is better than ANY season ever for Warner. Rodgers also LED the league at 9.2 avg. gain. Oh yeah, and he sat out the last
game of the year against the Lions. So he easily could have had even better total numbers. Brees led the league is passing yardage that year,
breaking Marino's yearly mark, so I guess you would've put Brees as the MVP that year, since you're really into yardage totals. So you're into
quantity and not quality. I get that, I just don't understand it.
In Rodgers' 2011 nearly perfect season, the Packers two top rushers were Ryan Grant with 559 yards and 2 TD, and James Starks with 578 and 1 TD.
So it's not like the Packers had a HOF threat at RB to rely on, unlike Warner who had HOF'er Marshall Faulk during his big years.
The 2011 Packers team averaged 35.0 points per game that year, 1st in the league. They allowed 22.4 ppg (19th). They were steam rolling teams that year and
other teams were playing from behind. Their offense was off the charts due to Rodgers, their defense was middle of the road. They played five games in domes, 11 outside.
So Warner CLEARLY had the more dominant single season? I highly doubt that. Warner played most of his games that year (11), on turf inside under perfect conditions.
He did have a really great year, it's one of the best all-time, but clearly not a slam dunk 'best ever' like you want us to believe, just because you say so.
In 1999, the Rams avg. 32.9 (1st), allowing 15.1 (4th rated). they had a much better defense than the Packers team in 2011.
Warner was throwing to stud WR's Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce those years. Two of the best at their position. Both are probably just under the HOF ladder. They're close
but I don't think they quite make the Hall. He also had HOF'er Marshall Faulk at RB. Faulk was the best RB in the game at that point. Warner clearly had the
better weapons and defense in his great 1999 season.
Rodgers' weapons in 2011 or even throughtout his career are not up to the Rams during the two big Warner years.
Rodgers has been throwing to a few pro bowl WR's in Nelson, Jennings, Cobb, an excellent slot WR in Driver, TE Finley, and James Jones. All very good players,
but not a single one of them will be in the HOF. Same with the RB's that played with Rodgers. They are Ryan Grant, James Starks, Alex Green (he led the Packers in rushing
in 2012 with under 500 yards!), Dujuan Harris, a few Cedric Benson games, and overweight Eddie Lacy. Again, not a single HOF'er in that RB group.
I don't see a single future HOF'er in the above group.
You don't like QB rating either? I wonder why since it's been used to evaluate all QB's using their actual passing statistics. It's a pretty fair
system really. It doesn't use an 'eye test' to evaluate, it uses actual data.
Usually the higher rated QB's tend to be on the more winning teams. Sure there's a few exceptions to this, but for the most part
it rates the QB's evenly without bias, just on passing. It's not perfect by any means. It doesn't take into account opponents defenses, dropped passes by receivers, weather and or playing conditions, the team's OL, and rushing attacks. It's just based on what a QB does with the ball once snapped.
Think of this, Rodgers just had his worst year, yet he still got the Packers to a 10-6 mark and the playoffs, 3821 yards, 31 TDs, 8 ints., rating 92.7 . This was his worst year.
This is Kurt Warner's worst year, 2002, 0-6 record, 1431 yards, 3 TD's , 11 Int's, a rating of 67.4. Benched for Marc Bulger who then went 6-1 as a starter the rest of the way.
Not sure why you mention Cam Newton. He did have a great year in 2015. An MVP year. But he wouldn't even be cosidered a HOF candidate for at least another 10-12 years.
Finally, during the last eight years, a pretty long and sustained time to judge passers, Aaron Rodgers name is ALWAYS mentioned among the
top THREE QB's in the NFL. Let's be fair and say TOP FOUR, I don't want to slight Drew Brees.
So you have P. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, and Brees.
Most football experts, dudes on ESPN, and game announcers say that If they were to select one player to start a team with, they would select Aaron Rodgers, given his age and
what's he's accomplished so far in his stellar career. He's at the mid-way point in his career and he's already put up HOF numbers.
I've never heard Roethlisberger's name mentioned in the Top four over these past eight years.
Except for maybe diehard Steelers fans and you. I guess those extra 50 starts and 15 more TD passes he's thrown are enough to
push him over Rodgers in your eyes, hey?
I just have to laugh everytime I hear someone, and its usually one of the hacks on TV, every season calling someone the greatest season they've ever seen, blah blah blah...Saying Rodgers 2011 season was the greatest ever just hilarious. Seems obvious the issue or disagree we mainly have is that you are unable to properly compare players of different eras. I've tried to give my point of view and assist you by telling you how most Pro Football historians do it. Which is by comparing the player first vs. players of his own era. OF COURSE Rodgers has bigger numbers, I guess you haven't noticed that the entire NFL has bigger passing numbers during Rodgers time though, huh? Alrighty then...lol
You keep trying to pigeon hole me into specific categories and what not..Like passing yards, if someone had more they must be better, etc...As I've told you a few times now, its about seeing the big picture...A stat-line, a winning %, awards and credentials, the eye test, etc...Every single one of these things play a part in understanding holistically what constitutes a HOFer or an All-Time Great player. Most of how I view and rank these guys isn't based on my opinion, but rather in studying the opinions and voting habits of HOF voters over the years. If you were to look back through many of my posts on the message board over the years you would see that much of my opinion on who us a HOFer and such is based on how I KNOW HOF voters feel and how they evaluate and compare players of different eras.
I mentioned QB Rating, because I KNOW for a fact that the majority of HOF voters don't look at it or take it into much consideration when voting on a QB. Don't take my word for it though, e-mail a few of them and ask them yourself. It is a mostly meaningless stat.
As far as Kurt Warner goes, he didn't become a lock HOFer until he took a 2nd team to the Super Bowl (Cardinals). Had he retired after all his Rams years and MVPs, big numbers, etc, he was NOT a HOFer, nor an All-time Great....Its why he actually got VOTED OFF the All-Time Great QB set...But helping to revive 2 longtime loser franchises, coming from bagging groceries gave his backstory much more merit than the avg. QB. His stats and awards/accolades are good enough to be elected, but without the backstory of what he accomplished, he wouldn't be going into the HOF as he will eventually do.
This goes right back into my initial post here which said WHY NOT WAIT? Still haven't heard a valid answer from anyone on why Rodgers OR Big Ben needed to be on the set already..They are neither LOCK HOFers if they reitred tomorrow. They are neither top 30 QBs of all-time id they retired tomorrow. They are both close, and both have a good chance to be HOFers and top 30 QBs within the next few years if they can sustain their play...So what the heck is the rush to add them prematurely to these sets? Why risk adding a guy (Patrick Willis and Calvin Johnson examples) before you can truly evaluate him as deserving without question?
You haven't heard Ben mentioned as a top 4 QB in the past 8 years? Not sure where you've been..He's absolutely been in that conversation..In fact, if you go back 10 years, from 2006-2010, he was often mentioned as the #3 QB behind Peyton and Brady. If Rodgers is the 4th best QB of the past 10 years, even putting him over Ben I'm not sure that makes him a HOFer just yet...Nor does it make him one of the greatest QBs of all-time...Just because all the passing number are skewed in this era doesn't mean these numbers make the current players better than guys with lesser numbers who played in a less pass happy era..Again, COMPARE THEM TO THEIR PEERS FIRST.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
There are 30 QB's on the HOF (Herber is listed as a tailback but clearly was a QB)
Here they are in no particular order (I actually tried to name them without looking up and I missed one - FINKS)
Brett Favre
Dan Marino
John Elway
Fran Tarkenton
Joe Montana
Johnny Unitas
Steve Young
Warren Moon
Y.A. Tittle
Troy Aikman
Sid Luckman
Bob Waterfield
Arnie Herber
Bob Griese
Bart Starr
Norm Van Brocklin
Otto Graham
Roger Staubach
Sammy Baugh
Terry Bradshaw
Ken Stabler
Joe Namath
George Blanda
Bobby Layne
Len Dawson
Jim Kelly
Dan Fouts
Sonny Jurgensen
Jim Finks
How many of these HOFers does Rodgers beat out on the eye test? I say at least 7 - Waterfield, Finks, Herber, Griese, Stabler, Namath and Blanda.
That puts him at 23rd but we have current players and senior candidates that garner attention to see if Rodgers is ahead of them in the eye test. I came up with 14 QBs that make this list.
Kurt Warner
Ben Roethlisberger
Philip Rivers
Drew Bledsoe
Eli Manning
Boomer Esiason
Donovan McNabb
Tony Romo
Ken Anderson
Jack Kemp
Drew Brees
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Jim Plunkett
On the list above Rodgers wins the eye test against 10 of them. He loses only to Warner, Brees, Brady and Manning (Peyton)
So 23 HOF plus 4 Non HOF puts Rodgers at 28th on my list.
Now some of you may whine about Eli, and Big Ben. Fine, put them in and he is still #30 but we all know he is 28th. :-)
So to answer the question "Is Aaron Rodgers one of the 30th best QB's in NFL history?" The answer is yes.
Calvin Johnson makes the HOF if he never plays again? Hmmm, I dont know about that...He might,but his odds are well below 50/50, which certainly doesnt make him a lock HOF, which is what the modern Future HOF set is supposed to be comprised of. Used as a feeder set to the HOF set.
Not sure what you are basing that opinion on with Calvin...He's not going to stack up favorably in this era 5 years from now...He never won much either...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Led league in TDs twice, top 3 in the NFL 3 times.
Never led the league in yards per attempt, top 3 in the NFL 4 times
Led League in completion % twice, top 3 in the NFL 4 times
----------------Led league in Comebacks TWICE, top 3 in the NFL 4 times---------------------
----------------Led League in game winning drives THREE TIMES, top 3 in the NFL 4 times-------------
1974 MVP, 1976 Player of the Year, Super Bowl win
Rodgers-
Never led the league in TDs, top 3 in the NFL 3 times
Led league in yards per attempt once, Top 3 in the NFL 4 times
Never led the league in completion %, top 3 in the NFL 2 times
-----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in the NFL in comebacks------------------
-----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in game winning drives -------------------
2001 and 2014 MVP, Super Bowl win, Super Bowl MVP
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Stabler-
Led league in TDs twice, top 3 in the NFL 3 times.
Never led the league in yards per attempt, top 3 in the NFL 4 times
Led League in completion % twice, top 3 in the NFL 4 times
----------------Led league in Comebacks TWICE, top 3 in the NFL 4 times---------------------
----------------Led League in game winning drives THREE TIMES, top 3 in the NFL 4 times-------------
1974 MVP, 1976 Player of the Year, Super Bowl win
Rodgers-
Never led the league in TDs, top 3 in the NFL 3 times
Led league in yards per attempt once, Top 3 in the NFL 4 times
Never led the league in completion %, top 3 in the NFL 2 times
-----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in the NFL in comebacks------------------
-----------------NEVER led the league, nor in the top 3 in game winning drives -------------------
2001 and 2014 MVP, Super Bowl win, Super Bowl MVP
Romo is one of the top leaders in comebacks. That stat means little to me. Maybe Rodgers did not have the opportunity for comebacks, because he played well enough early, so that and game winning drives is kind of a bs stat. No mention of Namath in your defense either
Its human nature to inherently believe that the newest and most recent "thing" is the better "thing"...You have to allow your mind to be open to believing that a guy with what would be considered today as having ugly stats, maybe a guy you either never watched play or don't know much about could be better than a guy you've watched play every snap the past 10 years like we can in today's environment. It's not an easy process, but without it, you, nor anyone you may be debating this points with will "get it"...
No QB from the 1970s or earlier, short of Johnny U. put up the same type stats that guys put up today..Ive found that someone either understands why that is in totality, or they refuse to believe a 25 TD-15 INT season could in anyway possible equate to better QB play than a guy with 40 TD-10 INT..No matter what the rules were, what the style of gameplay was, or how much difference in their paychecks were/are you either understand or you don't..No one, myself included, will be able to dissuade that person from their beliefs. Its simply a lack of knowledge via lack of information, and its something that MLB does way better than the NFL does...And thats educate its fan base on the history of their game...
Does anyone on earth rank Barry Bonds over Babe Ruth when ranking the best long ball hitters of all-time? If you just look at the stat line, you'd have to, no? Yet, we understand the situation of todays game vs. Babe Ruth's era enough that we can discern the difference between what Babe did and what Barry did...Not just WHAT they did but HOW they did it...Unfortunately the NFL is all about the NOW players and leave so many of their great players out of their normal conversations that casual fans, or even semi-hardcore fans dont care, dislike, dismiss the players who paved the way for the league..Its sad really..If you ever get a chance to talk to some of the old time players, ask them how they feel about it...I have on many occasions and their answers can and will shock you.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
From 1965 to 1974 Joe Namath was the game’s among the top three quarterbacks in the game. Take a look at the stats of all quarterbacks over that ten-year period who attempted at least 1500 passes:
Rk QB Att Pyd TD INT Sk SkYd Sk% Cmp% Y/C NY/A ANY/A
1 Fran Tarkenton 3588 26437 189 131 305 2562 7.8 55.7 13.2 6.13 5.59
2 Sonny Jurgensen 2770 19651 155 103 198 1636 6.7 58.6 12.1 6.07 5.55
3 Joe Namath 3099 23681 151 171 122 1165 3.8 50.5 15.1 6.99 5.54
4 Daryle Lamonica 2402 17580 155 126 142 1244 5.6 50 14.7 6.42 5.41
5 Len Dawson 2540 19385 147 120 245 2172 8.8 56.9 13.4 6.18 5.3
6 John Brodie 2987 20974 149 144 134 1048 4.3 55.9 12.6 6.38 5.26
7 Craig Morton 1545 11789 89 86 124 973 7.4 52.2 14.6 6.48 5.23
8 John Hadl 3599 26407 192 191 205 1882 5.4 50.5 14.5 6.45 5.2
9 Roman Gabriel 3586 23456 166 118 253 1902 6.6 53.4 12.2 5.61 5.1
10 Bill Nelsen 1861 13889 96 98 144 1289 7.2 50.9 14.7 6.28 5.04
11 Johnny Unitas 2155 15924 103 116 157 1238 6.8 54.9 13.5 6.35 4.99
12 Billy Kilmer 2124 14731 103 102 141 1056 6.2 53.8 12.9 6.04 4.92
13 Charley Johnson 2086 14573 100 102 155 1253 6.9 51.4 13.6 5.94 4.79
14 Jim Hart 2336 15874 102 115 136 1200 5.5 48.8 13.9 5.94 4.67
15 Bob Griese 2014 14309 114 103 204 1790 9.2 53.7 13.2 5.64 4.58
16 Bill Munson 1532 9858 64 57 135 968 8.1 54.2 11.9 5.33 4.56
17 Norm Snead 2747 19009 127 160 184 1450 6.3 53.8 12.9 5.99 4.4
Even among his contemporaries, Namath’s completion percentage wasn’t very good. But he also was #1 in both sack rate and yards per completion, an incredibly difficult feat to pull off. Thanks to Namath’s incredibly fast release and his big arm, the Jets designed a vertical offense that was effective at moving the ball down the field. In the most basic form of passing measurement, Net Yards per Attempt, Namath ranked 1st by half a yard per attempt. In ANY/A, which includes a penalty for interceptions and a bonus for touchdowns, Namath falls just 0.01 ANY/A out of second place.
Namath’s career wasn’t one of the best ever, and it certainly wasn’t as good as it could have been. It’s well-documented that Namath was never able to fulfill his enormous potential because of a variety of injuries. But standing alone, even ignoring his post-season success, Namath’s numbers stand up as elite. He did throw too many interceptions, even for his era, although on more talented teams he would have likely been a more conservative passer. But for a decade, he was arguably the most dangerous passer in professional football, putting aside all the glamour and glitz and guarantees.
Credit this write up to Chase Stuart, a fellow Pro Football historian. One of the better Pro-Namath arguments I've heard over the years.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
No reason to think Rodgers can't end his career as a top 10-20 QB of all-time...I think its unlikely he will become a top 10 all-timer, but certainly not impossible. His talent at this moment in time is among the best we have in the NFL, so lets see where he takes it from here...But at this point, unlike say a Manning or a Brady, he doesn't yet deserve to be mentioned or compared to the older legends of the game.
Just my opinion of course. I mean he's already on the QB set, so mostly a moot point.
Enjoyed refreshing my memory on Stabler and Namath. Was glad to have a reason to re-visit them again.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I am 56 y o and grew up in upstate NY with only one B & W TV and 3 channels. Also having to move the monkey ears antennae's around all the time
for reception. Local stations only showed local teams primarily. All you poor newbies out there with the NFL channel LOL.
That meant I saw the Jets play every week and saw a QB that could throw a 70 yard line drive for most of his career. I remember reading a book about Namath and the author claimed
Namath could throw "endzone to endzone." I would have to see that one to believe it !!!! Probably not far off though.
I have said many times here he is the one QB or even player you can throw out the stats on.
"Namath’s career wasn’t one of the best ever, and it certainly wasn’t as good as it could have been." is absolutely right.
He's not in my top list but he was the preeminent QB of his time. In today's game with an emphasis on pass rushing he would be a sitting duck with his lack of mobility.
I bet all the Namath hater's here are under 40 yo.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.