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

Who is the better QB

  • Aaron Rodgers

    Votes: 9 100.0%
  • Eli Manning

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
30,328
22,032
187
South Alabama
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.
My problem is that many try to say “Brady won with great teams”. Well not really. The Patriots defense from 01-07 wasn’t this superstar defense that many try to make it out to be. If Brady is so “mediocre” then why the Steelers and Ravens missing several Lombardis with far better defenses?

Nor was Brady’s his offenses that great. Aaron Rodgers for most of his career has had better offenses than Brady and did nothing with them.

I feel about the same way about Aaron as I do Ben. They have no problem taking huge contracts towards the end of their career but want to whine about having personnel issues because of it.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
29,846
17,119
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
My problem is that many try to say “Brady won with great teams”. Well not really. The Patriots defense from 01-07 wasn’t this superstar defense that many try to make it out to be. If Brady is so “mediocre” then why the Steelers and Ravens missing several Lombardis with far better defenses?

Nor was Brady’s his offenses that great. Aaron Rodgers for most of his career has had better offenses than Brady and did nothing with them.

I feel about the same way about Aaron as I do Ben. They have no problem taking huge contracts towards the end of their career but want to whine about having personnel issues because of it.
Anyone saying Brady was constantly surrounded by great teams is being dishonest. He has always been surrounded by great culture... but he was and is a massive component of establishing that culture. This was made obvious after his trade to the Buccs.

Brady had one or two seasons surrounded by what I'd classify as great offensive talent, and that's when Randy Moss was on the team. Now I agree that Gronk and Hernandez were great TEs, but in that era they never had great weapons outside.

Brady made those NE teams what they were. He was the absolute central component that everything revolved around. It's asinine for anyone to suggest otherwise. You're right about those defenses too, and I'll give Belichick the majority of the credit there. But the game changed over the last decade and despite never really being given a great surrounding cast, Brady was still leading NE to Super Bowls.

Aaron should have more hardware. It's that simple. I think Ben has done ok overall. He's got two Super Bowls, and played in three. And Eli Manning, I think, really overachieved when all was said and done. I don't think he was nearly as good as his brother, yet he has the same amount of Super Bowl wins. Of course, obviously, surrounding cast helped him. But Peyton never lacked for a surrounding cast.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: BamaInBham

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
41,930
33,576
187
Anyone saying Brady was constantly surrounded by great teams is being dishonest. He has always been surrounded by great culture... but he was and is a massive component of establishing that culture. This was made obvious after his trade to the Buccs.
Don't discount Belichick. TB is a franchise changing QB, just as Belichick is a franchise changing head coach. The era that they spent together changed the NFL. Both would have been great on their own - together they were something so special that we won't ever see it again.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
30,328
22,032
187
South Alabama
Don't discount Belichick. TB is a franchise changing QB, just as Belichick is a franchise changing head coach. The era that they spent together changed the NFL. Both would have been great on their own - together they were something so special that we won't ever see it again.
Yeah. Maybe Mac becomes the heir to Brady and can win a couple before Belichick retires. He has a lot in common with Brady.

I’m still trying to figure out how New England fans are going to welcome Brady next week, and how the exchange between Brady, Kraft, Bill, and Mac is going to go.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
30,328
22,032
187
South Alabama
Anyone saying Brady was constantly surrounded by great teams is being dishonest. He has always been surrounded by great culture... but he was and is a massive component of establishing that culture. This was made obvious after his trade to the Buccs.

Brady had one or two seasons surrounded by what I'd classify as great offensive talent, and that's when Randy Moss was on the team. Now I agree that Gronk and Hernandez were great TEs, but in that era they never had great weapons outside.

Brady made those NE teams what they were. He was the absolute central component that everything revolved around. It's asinine for anyone to suggest otherwise. You're right about those defenses too, and I'll give Belichick the majority of the credit there. But the game changed over the last decade and despite never really being given a great surrounding cast, Brady was still leading NE to Super Bowls.

Aaron should have more hardware. It's that simple. I think Ben has done ok overall. He's got two Super Bowls, and played in three. And Eli Manning, I think, really overachieved when all was said and done. I don't think he was nearly as good as his brother, yet he has the same amount of Super Bowl wins. Of course, obviously, surrounding cast helped him. But Peyton never lacked for a surrounding cast.
Im not a Peyton fan but until his last couple of years he really didn’t have a great team. But he did have great offenses. I respect Peyton. He didn’t throw a tantrum when Luck was drafted. He left, wished them luck, and found a new place.

As a Steelers fan I’m still sore about Ben. He forced AB out, and has demanded huge contracts. I’m just happy that TJ Watt wants to be a Steeler more than anything else because we were about to lose him if he didn’t make a deal without his agent. I’m happy what Ben accomplished for us, but good god his ego is killing our team.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
29,846
17,119
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Don't discount Belichick. TB is a franchise changing QB, just as Belichick is a franchise changing head coach. The era that they spent together changed the NFL. Both would have been great on their own - together they were something so special that we won't ever see it again.
I agree. I do think Brady should be given a little more credit than Bill, if only for the fact that a coach can only do so much. He needs buy in from his players. Brady fostered that like no one else. But yes, what NE did absolutely took both of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
31,370
18,622
287
52
Four all beef patties, 6 feet under: the McCPR
My problem is that many try to say “Brady won with great teams”. Well not really. The Patriots defense from 01-07 wasn’t this superstar defense that many try to make it out to be. If Brady is so “mediocre” then why the Steelers and Ravens missing several Lombardis with far better defenses?

Nor was Brady’s his offenses that great. Aaron Rodgers for most of his career has had better offenses than Brady and did nothing with them.

I feel about the same way about Aaron as I do Ben. They have no problem taking huge contracts towards the end of their career but want to whine about having personnel issues because of it.
Let's take a look.

HALL OF FAMERS BRADY PLAYED WITH IN NEW ENGLAND

Junior Seau - Patriots did not win any Super Bowls when he was on the team
Randy Moss - Patriots did not win any Super Bowls when he was on the team
Ty Law - he played defense, so how exactly he made Brady a HOF quarterback is a mystery

Of course, there WILL be a few others no doubt. Gronk probably. Vinatieri without question. Richard Seymour or Vince Woolfork. There's maybe 6-8 guys who might make it...because they played on a bunch of Super Bowl teams, just like happened with the 60s Packers and 70s Steeleers.

What's funny is that probably the best team with all-around talent in the Pats history - the 2007 team that just came up short of undefeated - didn't win the championshp. Brady and the Pats to me have always been the "little engine that could" of football teams, a team whose whole approach appears to be to keep the game close enough to win it late. Look at the fact Brady could VERY easily be 2-8 in Super Bowls, and he could also be 10-0. That's how close it's been, walking the fine line between "team that wins" and "team that chokes in the big game every year."
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
30,328
22,032
187
South Alabama
Let's take a look.

HALL OF FAMERS BRADY PLAYED WITH IN NEW ENGLAND

Junior Seau - Patriots did not win any Super Bowls when he was on the team
Randy Moss - Patriots did not win any Super Bowls when he was on the team
Ty Law - he played defense, so how exactly he made Brady a HOF quarterback is a mystery

Of course, there WILL be a few others no doubt. Gronk probably. Vinatieri without question. Richard Seymour or Vince Woolfork. There's maybe 6-8 guys who might make it...because they played on a bunch of Super Bowl teams, just like happened with the 60s Packers and 70s Steeleers.

What's funny is that probably the best team with all-around talent in the Pats history - the 2007 team that just came up short of undefeated - didn't win the championshp. Brady and the Pats to me have always been the "little engine that could" of football teams, a team whose whole approach appears to be to keep the game close enough to win it late. Look at the fact Brady could VERY easily be 2-8 in Super Bowls, and he could also be 10-0. That's how close it's been, walking the fine line between "team that wins" and "team that chokes in the big game every year."
My issue is more that people have this revisionist history that Belichick had a defense that was on par with the Steelers and Ravens at the same period of time in an effort to discount Brady’s importance to that first run.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
29,846
17,119
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
My issue is more that people have this revisionist history that Belichick had a defense that was on par with the Steelers and Ravens at the same period of time in an effort to discount Brady’s importance to that first run.
It's because they did what they did to the greatest show on turf Rams in that first Super Bowl. I think so, anyway.

Then after that, they just seemed to always show up when it mattered most. Except against the Giants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
31,370
18,622
287
52
Four all beef patties, 6 feet under: the McCPR
My issue is more that people have this revisionist history that Belichick had a defense that was on par with the Steelers and Ravens at the same period of time in an effort to discount Brady’s importance to that first run.
Well, let's take a look. I have no idea what this is going to show except it's ludicrous to include a comparison of a ONE-SEASON wonder like the 2000 Ravens. Excpt

Patriots Team Scoring Defense Rankings by Season during Brady Era

Bold - win SB
Bold plus Italics - lost SB

2001 - 6th (Rams 7th, gave up 1 more point)
2002 - 17th
2003 - 1st
2004 - 3rd (Eagles 2nd)

2005 - 17th
2006 - 2nd (blew AFC title game to Colts after leading, 21-3)
2007 - 4th
2008 - 8th (Brady injured in game 1)
2009 - 5th
2010 - 8th
2011 - 15th (Giants 25th)
2012 - 10th (Super Bowl champion Ravens 12th)
2013 - 10th (Super Bowl champion Seattle 1st)
2014 - 8th (Seattle 1st)
2015 - 10th (Seattle 1st, Denver 4th)
2016 - 1st
2017 - 5th
2018 - 7th (Rams 20th)

2019 - 1st (lost early playoff game)

So there IS something to the idea that Brady has had some VERY GOOD defenses. He won six Super Bowls in New England. Twice his team had the best defense in the NFL. And we'll throw in that Tampa was 8th last year so we can conclude this:

Tom Brady has NEVER won a Super Bowl when his team defense ranked BELOW 8th in the NFL (this is out of 32 teams since 2002). Every single time he wins, his defense is among the top 25% in the league. He has only made it to the Super Bowl ONE TIME (2011) when his team defense was lower than 8th. When you look above and see all those rankings like 17th and 10th, Brady didn't make the Super Bowl or win it. (We have to exclude 2008 as well since Brady got hurt in the first game of the year - but the Pats still had a top 8 defense in the league, too).

During their glory years in the 1970s, the Steelers were:
1974 - 2nd (Rams 1st)
1975 - 2nd (Rams 1st)

1976 - 1st (Raiders won SB)
1977 - 17th (Atlanta Falcons set record for fewest points in 14-game season and went 7-7)
1978 - 1st
1979 - 5th

1980 - 15th
1981 - 11th

So while I guess it's okay to say that Brady didn't quite have the Pittsburgh level of defense, the fact remains he HAS had VERY GOOD defenses in the years he either went to or won the Super Bowl with one exception, 2011. And now let's look at Aaron Rodgers:

2008 - 22nd (6-10)
2009 - 7th (11-5)
2010 - 2nd (10-6)**
2011 - 19th (15-1, lost to Eli)
2012 - 11th (11-5)
2013 - 25th (8-7-1, lost to Kapernick, 23-20)
2014 - 14th (12-4)
2015 - 12th (10-6)
2016 - 21st (10-6, blown out by Falcons in NFC title)
2017 - 26th (7-9)
2018 - 22nd (6-9-1)
2019 - 9th (13-3, lost NFC title game to SF)
2020 - 13th (13-3, lost NFC title to Tampa)

Have you noticed something true about both Brady and Rodgers? There is a DIRECT CORRELATION (no surprise) between the level of defense and how far they go in the playoffs. Rodgers has had NOTHING on defense to compare with Brady. Yes, there are outliers like the 2011 Pats or the 2011 Packers (15-1, holy smoke), but generally speaking, the teams that win the Super Bowls have good defenses and good quarterbacks. Even an elite QB like Tom Brady CANNOT win a Super Bowl without a decent defense, and the numbers support that without exception.

You don't have to have the 2000 Ravens defense to win the title. You can have the 2001 Ravens D (265 points surrendered) and still win it with a good QB.


** - the two best defenses in football were #1 Pittsburgh and #2 Green Bay, who played for the title
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
30,328
22,032
187
South Alabama
Well, let's take a look. I have no idea what this is going to show except it's ludicrous to include a comparison of a ONE-SEASON wonder like the 2000 Ravens. Excpt

Patriots Team Scoring Defense Rankings by Season during Brady Era

Bold - win SB
Bold plus Italics - lost SB

2001 - 6th (Rams 7th, gave up 1 more point)
2002 - 17th
2003 - 1st
2004 - 3rd (Eagles 2nd)

2005 - 17th
2006 - 2nd (blew AFC title game to Colts after leading, 21-3)
2007 - 4th
2008 - 8th (Brady injured in game 1)
2009 - 5th
2010 - 8th
2011 - 15th (Giants 25th)
2012 - 10th (Super Bowl champion Ravens 12th)
2013 - 10th (Super Bowl champion Seattle 1st)
2014 - 8th (Seattle 1st)
2015 - 10th (Seattle 1st, Denver 4th)
2016 - 1st
2017 - 5th
2018 - 7th (Rams 20th)

2019 - 1st (lost early playoff game)

So there IS something to the idea that Brady has had some VERY GOOD defenses. He won six Super Bowls in New England. Twice his team had the best defense in the NFL. And we'll throw in that Tampa was 8th last year so we can conclude this:

Tom Brady has NEVER won a Super Bowl when his team defense ranked BELOW 8th in the NFL (this is out of 32 teams since 2002). Every single time he wins, his defense is among the top 25% in the league. He has only made it to the Super Bowl ONE TIME (2011) when his team defense was lower than 8th. When you look above and see all those rankings like 17th and 10th, Brady didn't make the Super Bowl or win it. (We have to exclude 2008 as well since Brady got hurt in the first game of the year - but the Pats still had a top 8 defense in the league, too).

During their glory years in the 1970s, the Steelers were:
1974 - 2nd (Rams 1st)
1975 - 2nd (Rams 1st)

1976 - 1st (Raiders won SB)
1977 - 17th (Atlanta Falcons set record for fewest points in 14-game season and went 7-7)
1978 - 1st
1979 - 5th

1980 - 15th
1981 - 11th

So while I guess it's okay to say that Brady didn't quite have the Pittsburgh level of defense, the fact remains he HAS had VERY GOOD defenses in the years he either went to or won the Super Bowl with one exception, 2011. And now let's look at Aaron Rodgers:

2008 - 22nd (6-10)
2009 - 7th (11-5)
2010 - 2nd (10-6)**
2011 - 19th (15-1, lost to Eli)
2012 - 11th (11-5)
2013 - 25th (8-7-1, lost to Kapernick, 23-20)
2014 - 14th (12-4)
2015 - 12th (10-6)
2016 - 21st (10-6, blown out by Falcons in NFC title)
2017 - 26th (7-9)
2018 - 22nd (6-9-1)
2019 - 9th (13-3, lost NFC title game to SF)
2020 - 13th (13-3, lost NFC title to Tampa)

Have you noticed something true about both Brady and Rodgers? There is a DIRECT CORRELATION (no surprise) between the level of defense and how far they go in the playoffs. Rodgers has had NOTHING on defense to compare with Brady. Yes, there are outliers like the 2011 Pats or the 2011 Packers (15-1, holy smoke), but generally speaking, the teams that win the Super Bowls have good defenses and good quarterbacks. Even an elite QB like Tom Brady CANNOT win a Super Bowl without a decent defense, and the numbers support that without exception.

You don't have to have the 2000 Ravens defense to win the title. You can have the 2001 Ravens D (265 points surrendered) and still win it with a good QB.


** - the two best defenses in football were #1 Pittsburgh and #2 Green Bay, who played for the title
Im strictly talking about Ravens and Steelers defenses from 00-11. My point is that just any Ole quarterback can’t just show up to 10 Super Bowls.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
30,328
22,032
187
South Alabama
It's because they did what they did to the greatest show on turf Rams in that first Super Bowl. I think so, anyway.

Then after that, they just seemed to always show up when it mattered most. Except against the Giants.
The 2001 Patriots are basically the 2013 Auburn and 1995 Nebraska of the NFL all in one. They had by far the luckiest Super Bowl run next to the 2012 Ravens and have the biggest revisionist historical take ever. If you asked most at the time many believed that the Steelers were the best team in 2001 by a mile in the AFC and it was finally going to be their year. Most saw the 2001 AFCCG as one of the biggest upsets in the history of the NFL and was more about Kordell Stewart blowing it than Belichick winning it. Many feared that we were heading for another Chargers/49ers Super Bowl blowout in which the wrong team lucked into the game and denied us a good Super Bowl. But now everyone talks like it’s a genius Belichick gameplan and Brady super performance. But really neither happened. The Rams more got in their own way and Brady probably played his worst Super Bowl. That Rams team still put 430 yards on Belichick that day.

Probably it can be said that the 1st and 6th rings were gifts from the football gods to make up for the 2007 and 2017 missing rings. But without a doubt their first super bowl is probably the most luckiest one they ever had and the one that they shouldn’t have… and that has little to do with the tuck rule game.
 
Last edited:

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
29,846
17,119
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I remember all the talk of the Patriot DBs manhandling the Rams WRs and frustrating Warner. I do remember Brady’s biggest moment was leading NE into FG range on the last drive, and Belichick electing to go for the FG drive rather than taking knees and forcing OT. That seemed to be a big deal at the time; conventional wisdom said run out the clock and play for OT, don’t risk a huge mistake in your own territory with a rookie QB.

I don’t really agree it was luck, but I’ll agree that maybe it was NE’s most fortunate run. But I’ll also admit I was 18 at the time and not the most diehard NFL fan. I pulled for the Rams that night; I loved that offense and thought it was unstoppable.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
3,952
993
137
My issue is more that people have this revisionist history that Belichick had a defense that was on par with the Steelers and Ravens at the same period of time in an effort to discount Brady’s importance to that first run.
Many think that Brady was nothing but a caretaker in his early career - he made the Pro Bowl his very first year starting.

One of the primary things that separates Brady from almost everyone else is his play at crunch time. Belechick admitted that he could trust "a QB like Brady" even in their first SB, therefore against the advice of Mr. Madden they did not play for the tie but successfully went for the win. That is why NE won so much in the playoffs. They never blew anyone out because they were not a dominant team; as selma noted, they played close, then won at crunch time because of Brady. Even in some of the losses he took his team down late to win but the D couldn't hold on.