Who is the better QB - Eli Manning or Aaron Rodgers?

[81usaf92]

As I said above - when you "have" to take 4-8 every year, you eventually water down the Hall to an unrecognizable entity. When Swann went first I was like, "what the hell?"

Did I figure he was going in? Yes.

That doesn't change the fact he's largely in because of the team he played for and a few highlight catches in the Super Bowl. As I said, Curt Schilling. A so-so player in the regular season with a couple of very prominent moments in the post-season that got everyone's attention.

As far as Steelers receivers go... Hines Ward was better than Swann and probably more important to his team than Swann.

 

[seebell]

No way Gale Sayers and Lynn Swan are better quarterbacks than Aaron Rodgers!!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

As far as Steelers receivers go... Hines Ward was better than Swann and probably more important to his team than Swann.

Swann is by no means the worst player in the Hall of Fame. It's not like he's Roger Bresnahan or Rube Waddell or Rube Marquard or Jesse Haines in baseball. Or - dare I say it - Harold Baines. He was a good player. I always thought Stallworth was more the star, though. The problem with evaluating BOTH of them is they played ACROSS ERAS. They played four years under the old NFL passing rules, where pass interference had to be so flagrant as a criminal act to be called, and then Swann played five under the new ones and Stallworth ten. Folks need to remember that when you play across eras, it affects your numbers severely. It's easy to look at Sayers in context because of when he played. Same with MJD. It's not so easy with the Steelers and Raiders of the 70s and 80s.

In 1977, the most passing yards was Joe Ferguson of Buffalo, who had 2803. TWENTY-ONE NFL starters did better than that last year and the few who didn't were RPO guys like Lamar Jackson, old guys like Cam, or guys who didn't play the full season like Burrow or Darnold.

In 1978 - the year they changed the bump rule and permitted O-line guys to extend their arms for pass blocking - ELEVEN guys surpassed what Ferguson did in 1977. What this means, of course, is that the offensive numbers for guys whose career crossed eras are very......weird. Keep in mind that 1978 was also the year we went from a 14 to a 16-game season, which also crosses things up a bit.

I'm starting to think that's what kept Drew Pearson out of the Hall for so long. Bear in mind something else - if a team has TWO good receivers (like Swann and Stallworth and - to be blunt - Bennie Cunningham and Randy Grossman), that decreases their chances. And the Steelers had Franco, too - which reduced chances. Dallas had Tony Dorsett and it should be noted that both Robert Newhouse and Ron Springs were servicable players.

One could argue that the superstar status of Dorsett and Franco in the late 70s/early 80s reduces the pass catching stats of Swann and Stallworth. And they'd be right.

 

[81usaf92]

One could argue that the superstar status of Dorsett and Franco in the late 70s/early 80s reduces the pass catching stats of Swann and Stallworth. And they'd be right.

bradshaw as well.

 

[DogPatch]

No way Gale Sayers and Lynn Swan are better quarterbacks than Aaron Rodgers!!

He has a point . . .

 

[81usaf92]

When are we going to get a “who is a better quarterback: Aaron Rodgers or Jameis Winston poll? Pretty Simple question.

 

[BamaInBham]

As I said above - when you "have" to take 4-8 every year, you eventually water down the Hall to an unrecognizable entity. When Swann went first I was like, "what the hell?"

Did I figure he was going in? Yes.

That doesn't change the fact he's largely in because of the team he played for and a few highlight catches in the Super Bowl. As I said, Curt Schilling. A so-so player in the regular season with a couple of very prominent moments in the post-season that got everyone's attention.

Could not disagree more with your characterization of Schilling. Won 15+ reg season 8 times, 20+ 3 times, had ~60% win %, 3000+ strikeouts, 4 times in top 4 CY award, top 10 all time in starter WHIP (1920 forward, 130+ wins), spectacular SO/BB ratio of 4.4/1, etc.. Post season: 11-2 record with 2.23 era, 5/1 SO/BB ratio, incredible 0.968 WHIP, Had multiple legendary clutch post-season performances for 3 different teams. Was a Brady-like performer at crunch time on the biggest stage. Took down iconic Yankee teams twice in era defining series.

I did not know Schilling was not in the HoF till I just checked. I guess the sports writers don't like him. Frankly, IMO, it is ridiculous. Had a career reg season WAR of 81, (wins above replacement, i.e., value added to team), greater than Smoltz 66 or Glavine 73, Koufax 53 (shorter career), Whitey Ford 53, Don Drysdale 6, Don Sutton 68, , Early Wynn 52, et al. All are in the HoF. In fact, the only pitchers I checked who were higher was Maddux at 105 and Pedro Martinez 86, there are certainly others. Far beyond a "so-so" reg season player, even most of his detractors would acknowledge that. The media...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Could not disagree more with your characterization of Schilling. Won 15+ reg season 8 times, 20+ 3 times, had ~60% win %, 3000+ strikeouts, 4 times in top 4 CY award, top 10 all time in starter WHIP (1920 forward, 130+ wins), spectacular SO/BB ratio of 4.4/1, etc.. Post season: 11-2 record with 2.23 era, 5/1 SO/BB ratio, incredible 0.968 WHIP, Had multiple legendary clutch post-season performances for 3 different teams. Was a Brady-like performer at crunch time on the biggest stage. Took down iconic Yankee teams twice in era defining series.

I did not know Schilling was not in the HoF till I just checked. I guess the sports writers don't like him. Frankly, IMO, it is ridiculous. Had a career reg season WAR of 81, (wins above replacement, i.e., value added to team), greater than Smoltz 66 or Glavine 73, Koufax 53 (shorter career), Whitey Ford 53, Don Drysdale 6, Don Sutton 68, , Early Wynn 52, et al. All are in the HoF. In fact, the only pitchers I checked who were higher was Maddux at 105 and Pedro Martinez 86, there are certainly others. Far beyond a "so-so" reg season player, even most of his detractors would acknowledge that. The media...

Let's take a look at the guys similar to Schilling on the HOF monitor:

1) Zack Greinke and Justin Verlander at both Hall of Famers.

I'll talk about Smoltz in a moment. So 3 out of the 10 guys to whome he's similar are/will be/should be in the Hall. On the other hand, that means SEVEN aren't.

2) Do you think Tim Hudson is a Hall of Famer? Serious question.

Hudson has more wins (222-216), fewer losses (133-146), a similar ERA (3.49 to 3.46), just as many 15-win seasons, three times in the top 4 of the Cy Young Award. No, he doesn't have as many strikeouts, trailing by little over 1,000, and the K/BB isn't in the ballpark, but he's a similar pitcher. And he didn't play for teams with near the talent that Schilling did.

What separates - when you get right down to it - Schilling from Hudson? The post-season (which was my point).

And why is that? Because Hudson didn't play for teams as good as the 2001 D'backs or the 2004 Red Sox.

3) What about Kevin Brown?

Here's another one.

Kevin Brown had five fewer wins and two fewer losses. And his ERA was quite a bit better (3.28 vs 3.46). He got chosen for six All-Star Games JUST LIKE SCHILLING did.

Brown's average season as a big leaguer was 15-10, the exact same record as Schilling and LESS than Hudson's yearly average of 16-9.

Nobody suggests Kevin Brown is a Hall of Famer, but what's the REAL difference between Brown and Schiling? The post-season, which is my point.

4) What about Bob Welch?

Again, another Curt Schilling pitcher career-wise.

Five fewer wins, same number of losses and same ERA. Of course, this is less impressive for Welch because he didn't play during the steroid era and was primarily an NL pitcher. He had six 15-win seasons, including a 27-win season in 1990 when you won what Schilling never did - a Cy Young Award.

This one isn't as close. If Welch had been able to stay away from booze, he's probably a Hall of Famer.

5) Orel Hershiser

Now personally, I'd take 1988 Hershiser over any pitcher I've ever seen, at least during those last two months and the post-season. Fewer wins (by 12), more losses (by 4), and a similar ERA. Four top-four finishes in the CYA voting - and a unanimous win in 1988.

Hershiser misses out because:
a) he actually (as shocking as this seems) PITCHED BETTER in 1989, but lack of offense left him 15-15
b) he missed 1 1/2 seasons due to an arm injury at age 31

So we have two cases where in all honesty the only thing separating them is the post-season and two more with other issues.

6) John Smoltz

Now since you brought up Smoltz, I'll address that. Smoltz cannot REALLY be compared to Schilling straight-up simply because Smoltz (like Eckersley) had two careers, technically three. He started from 1988-99, became a closer for four years and then a starter again. He has 3 fewer wins, 9 more losses, a better ERA, and nearly as many Ks. He has 6 15-win seasons (including a 24-win CYA year in 1996) and four more 14-win seasons (if you lower the threshold from 15 wins to 14, Smoltz beats Schilling, 10-9).

Now let me give one point to you where you are right, and I am wrong - my verbiage on Schilling should not have been "so-so," he was a GOOD pitcher. He was NOT a GREAT pitcher. Not only was the guy never the best pitcher in the league, he was never even on a GOOD TEAM where he was the best pitcher with one exception, the 1993 Phillies. Yes, he had a better year than Pedro in 2004 - because Pedro missed several starts with an elbow injury that signaled the end of his career. But straight up healthy, Boston picks Pedro over Schilling every time.

SHOULD Schilling be in the Hall? Depends.

Is the best player eligible NOT in the Hall? No, because Barry Bonds isn't in the Hall. Roger Clemens, either. But let's set them (and Pete Rose, who is not eligible) aside.

I'm not sure how one would choose Schilling over Tommy John. John hung on too long but to win 288 games MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE after the famous surgery that changed pitcher's arms forever - that sounds like a HOF to me.

Do I think Schilling should be in the Hall based on his on-the-field stuff? Yes.

But it's still the post-season that puts him over - you even appealed to it in your own case. The post-season accomplishments of Schilling DO push him from "borderline case/probable yes" to "yes, he should be." That was the point I was trying to make but failed in verbiage.

Do I think he's cost himself? Unfortunately, yes.

 

[BamaInBham]

Let's take a look at the guys similar to Schilling on the HOF monitor:

1) Zack Greinke and Justin Verlander at both Hall of Famers.

I'll talk about Smoltz in a moment. So 3 out of the 10 guys to whome he's similar are/will be/should be in the Hall. On the other hand, that means SEVEN aren't.

2) Do you think Tim Hudson is a Hall of Famer? Serious question.

Hudson has more wins (222-216), fewer losses (133-146), a similar ERA (3.49 to 3.46), just as many 15-win seasons, three times in the top 4 of the Cy Young Award. No, he doesn't have as many strikeouts, trailing by little over 1,000, and the K/BB isn't in the ballpark, but he's a similar pitcher. And he didn't play for teams with near the talent that Schilling did.

What separates - when you get right down to it - Schilling from Hudson? The post-season (which was my point).

And why is that? Because Hudson didn't play for teams as good as the 2001 D'backs or the 2004 Red Sox.

3) What about Kevin Brown?

Here's another one.

Kevin Brown had five fewer wins and two fewer losses. And his ERA was quite a bit better (3.28 vs 3.46). He got chosen for six All-Star Games JUST LIKE SCHILLING did.

Brown's average season as a big leaguer was 15-10, the exact same record as Schilling and LESS than Hudson's yearly average of 16-9.

Nobody suggests Kevin Brown is a Hall of Famer, but what's the REAL difference between Brown and Schiling? The post-season, which is my point.

4) What about Bob Welch?

Again, another Curt Schilling pitcher career-wise.

Five fewer wins, same number of losses and same ERA. Of course, this is less impressive for Welch because he didn't play during the steroid era and was primarily an NL pitcher. He had six 15-win seasons, including a 27-win season in 1990 when you won what Schilling never did - a Cy Young Award.

This one isn't as close. If Welch had been able to stay away from booze, he's probably a Hall of Famer.

5) Orel Hershiser

Now personally, I'd take 1988 Hershiser over any pitcher I've ever seen, at least during those last two months and the post-season. Fewer wins (by 12), more losses (by 4), and a similar ERA. Four top-four finishes in the CYA voting - and a unanimous win in 1988.

Hershiser misses out because:
a) he actually (as shocking as this seems) PITCHED BETTER in 1989, but lack of offense left him 15-15
b) he missed 1 1/2 seasons due to an arm injury at age 31

So we have two cases where in all honesty the only thing separating them is the post-season and two more with other issues.

6) John Smoltz

Now since you brought up Smoltz, I'll address that. Smoltz cannot REALLY be compared to Schilling straight-up simply because Smoltz (like Eckersley) had two careers, technically three. He started from 1988-99, became a closer for four years and then a starter again. He has 3 fewer wins, 9 more losses, a better ERA, and nearly as many Ks. He has 6 15-win seasons (including a 24-win CYA year in 1996) and four more 14-win seasons (if you lower the threshold from 15 wins to 14, Smoltz beats Schilling, 10-9).

Now let me give one point to you where you are right, and I am wrong - my verbiage on Schilling should not have been "so-so," he was a GOOD pitcher. He was NOT a GREAT pitcher. Not only was the guy never the best pitcher in the league, he was never even on a GOOD TEAM where he was the best pitcher with one exception, the 1993 Phillies. Yes, he had a better year than Pedro in 2004 - because Pedro missed several starts with an elbow injury that signaled the end of his career. But straight up healthy, Boston picks Pedro over Schilling every time.

SHOULD Schilling be in the Hall? Depends.

Is the best player eligible NOT in the Hall? No, because Barry Bonds isn't in the Hall. Roger Clemens, either. But let's set them (and Pete Rose, who is not eligible) aside.

I'm not sure how one would choose Schilling over Tommy John. John hung on too long but to win 288 games MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE after the famous surgery that changed pitcher's arms forever - that sounds like a HOF to me.

Do I think Schilling should be in the Hall based on his on-the-field stuff? Yes.

But it's still the post-season that puts him over - you even appealed to it in your own case. The post-season accomplishments of Schilling DO push him from "borderline case/probable yes" to "yes, he should be." That was the point I was trying to make but failed in verbiage.

Do I think he's cost himself? Unfortunately, yes.

I think we agree for the most part.

I can agree that the postseason places inordinate focus on a relatively short period of time; as well, it can diminish, even ignore, many who do not have the good fortune of playing on a team good enough to make it. I can agree with that, at the same time wanting to give it proper consideration since championships are a great focus of the athletes themselves. Frankly, there are so many instances in sports and life that are greatly dependent on "time and chance". The ballpark in which you pitch, era, teammates, health, etc. are just a few in baseball.

Two things where Schilling is not just good but elite is strikeouts and WHIP. One is totally independent of team, both indicate dominance. Schilling was considered a dominant pitcher by most during much of his career.

Then add his historic post-season W-L record of 11-2: not only the numbers but the iconic (One reason they are considered iconic is because his performance brought signal victories.) WSs an ALCS in which he pitched exceptionally well: 93 Phil/Toronto in game 5 he dominated one of the greatest lineups in history who averaged 9 runs per game in the WS aside from his shutout; 01 Ariz/NYY took down and ended the greatest MLB dynasty of the past 50 years; 04 Boston/NYY ALCS breaking the best known "curse" in sports history with arguably the greatest comeback in sports history down 0-3 to the NYY (no one had ever come back down 0-3), then swept StL for the WS title. Won again in 07 vs StL, contributing to the sweep. I have great respect for those who can perform at crunch time, e.g., Brady. At the same time doing it over time and when "no one's looking" has its own great value.

Pedro said that the "Yankees are my daddy", but they weren't Schilling's. His attitude and efforts helped put an end to their dominance. They haven't recovered yet except for 09.

Schilling also pitched the bulk of his career during the steroid era which would be a major disadvantage to pitchers in terms of most numbers except for W-L. This assuming he was innocent, which as far as I know he was.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think we agree for the most part.

I can agree that the postseason places inordinate focus on a relatively short period of time; as well, it can diminish, even ignore, many who do not have the good fortune of playing on a team good enough to make it. I can agree with that, at the same time wanting to give it proper consideration since championships are a great focus of the athletes themselves. Frankly, there are so many instances in sports and life that are greatly dependent on "time and chance". The ballpark in which you pitch, era, teammates, health, etc. are just a few in baseball.

Two things where Schilling is not just good but elite is strikeouts and WHIP. One is totally independent of team, both indicate dominance. Schilling was considered a dominant pitcher by most during much of his career.

Then add his historic post-season W-L record of 11-2: not only the numbers but the iconic (One reason they are considered iconic is because his performance brought signal victories.) WSs an ALCS in which he pitched exceptionally well: 93 Phil/Toronto in game 5 he dominated one of the greatest lineups in history who averaged 9 runs per game in the WS aside from his shutout; 01 Ariz/NYY took down and ended the greatest MLB dynasty of the past 50 years; 04 Boston/NYY ALCS breaking the best known "curse" in sports history with arguably the greatest comeback in sports history down 0-3 to the NYY (no one had ever come back down 0-3), then swept StL for the WS title. Won again in 07 vs StL, contributing to the sweep. I have great respect for those who can perform at crunch time, e.g., Brady. At the same time doing it over time and when "no one's looking" has its own great value.

Pedro said that the "Yankees are my daddy", but they weren't Schilling's. His attitude and efforts helped put an end to their dominance. They haven't recovered yet except for 09.

Schilling also pitched the bulk of his career during the steroid era which would be a major disadvantage to pitchers in terms of most numbers except for W-L. This assuming he was innocent, which as far as I know he was.

Long story short.

Where we appear to agree:
Schilling is a HOFer
Schilling was a good pitcher
Schilling was an elite post-season pitcher
The media does let their biases get in the way where it comes to him - up to a point

Where I think we disagree:
I don't consider Schilling a slam dunk HOFer like, say, Greg Maddux or Babe Ruth

(Not to put words in your mouth, it appears that even though you likely wouldn't put him in that level of category, you seem to hold the view he's a no doubt about it HOFer. I don't agree on that point, and the post-season in my view is what puts him over, kinda like Kurt Warner in the football).

 

[DogPatch]

Still doesn't sound like Schilling is a better QB than either Eli or Rodgers.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Still doesn't sound like Schilling is a better QB than either Eli or Rodgers.

He's better at throwing the ball...

 

[81usaf92]

Aaron Rodgers is so desperate for a passing td that he had to throw 2 passes on the 1 yard line to get it after his running back got him all the way down there.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Man I'm pulling for Detriot.

I used to like Rodgers a lot. But as more and more of his personality has been revealed over the years, I'm just not a fan anymore.

 

[81usaf92]

Man I'm pulling for Detriot.

I used to like Rodgers a lot. But as more and more of his personality has been revealed over the years, I'm just not a fan anymore.

Well when you don’t talk to your family for over 3 years because your girlfriend has a problem with them is kinda a character reveal

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Well when you don’t talk to your family for over 3 years because your girlfriend has a problem with them is kinda a character reveal

There's an internet "story" that his parents and maybe brother Jordan sent him Christmas (maybe Birthday) gifts and he sent them back unopened. I'm not sure how true this is but wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[81usaf92]

There's an internet "story" that his parents and maybe brother Jordan sent him Christmas (maybe Birthday) gifts and he sent them back unopened. I'm not sure how true this is but wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I would say “well we are only getting Jordan’s side of it”, but Aaron himself has admitted to the pettiness of the relationship. I get that not everyone has a close nit family like the Brady’s and Manning’s, but a lot of the information coming out about Rodgers (specifically Aaron) is just appalling. Adding to how he has treated the off-season you kinda see there is a major character flaw.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I would say “well we are only getting Jordan’s side of it”, but Aaron himself has admitted to the pettiness of the relationship. I get that not everyone has a close nit family like the Brady’s and Manning’s, but a lot of the information coming out about Rodgers (specifically Aaron) is just appalling. Adding to how he has treated the off-season you kinda see there is a major character flaw.

He just comes across as a pretentious, high maintenance jackass.

 

[81usaf92]

He just comes across as a pretentious, high maintenance jackass.

I think a lot of it is Brady and Mahomes envy.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I think a lot of it is Brady and Mahomes envy.

He is extremely talented. But he's failed to accomplish what those two have and he's nearing the end of his career. Brady is the living embodiment of the energizer bunny while Mahommes is just getting started.

And here is the kicker... while Green Bay has not done the best job from a personnel standpoint, Rogers has been surrounded by good enough talent several years during his career.