re: This is why Super Bowl rings are mostly irrelevant

quote:

---

Rodgers would go in that Marino, Elway, Peyton catagory of guys more skilled then Brady is. There is just no way I could compare the resume to Brady and put him over Tom in terms of "Greatness". Brady's resume is insane now. He has literally done almost everything

---

That's just where we agree to disagree.

I posted earlier in this thread, someone mentioned Brady 2006-2012 being the greatest QBing they'd seen. I pointed out Rodgers for his career is better than Brady 2006-2012) at basically every measure, so I give the nod to Rodgers based on his career production/efficiency being a good bit better than every other QB to ever play.

Wtf!

You prove yourself wrong with quotes , then took credit for being right. Nice!

Jordan>Lebron and it's not even close

quote:

---

I did not say that. I simply said that Brady was playing at a higher level in 2006-2012 then Rodgers has over a similar period. 

---

ok, my bad.

Not sure how you can think that after I posted that Rodgers for his career is better at basically everything compared to Brady in that time frame.

quote:

---

2007 Tom Brady is better than anything Aaron Rodgers has done so far. 

---

2011 Rodgers was more efficient. Slightly lower completion percentage, but better TD%, better int%, much higher YPA, better Passer rating.

Those are both his quotes numbnuts.......lol

I said he called it irrelevant, he said "false". I posted his OP topic line.

Get it now? Geeez kid

Irrelevant....mostly irrelevant

So if I say you lick mostly a-hole, you're not licking a-hole?

Champ I am

And you are mostly dumb
:)

I wouldn't say it's irrelevent. It just isn't the centerpiece to the "goat" arguments like people want to act. There are too many variables to try to put so much stock in that one number. Although it does add quite a bit of prestige to a career.