Do Not Sell My Personal Information

PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE: PG-13
PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade
Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:01 pm
  • A pretty good amount of respect in these rankings.

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... he-decade/

    3. Russell Wilson. A Super Bowl champion in only his second season, Wilson has become one of the most dangerous quarterbacks, with his underrated passing skills and uncanny mobility. The highest-paid player in league history, the Seahawks wisely have built the team around a guy who is destined to be one of the Top 10 quarterbacks of the next decade, too.


    I like that spot for Russ, behind Brady and Rodgers, but ahead of Brees. If we want to get really greedy, the durability argument could be made against Rodgers, but for now, I think this is fair. May be worth revisiting depending on what happens in the postseason though.

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... he-decade/

    4. Marshawn Lynch: Lynch is back with the Seahawks just in time to close out the decade in style. He has 7,778 rushing yards and 67 rushing touchdowns this decade and another 1,551 receiving yards and eight touchdowns on 194 receptions. Lynch was at his best in the postseason, too, with 937 rushing yards and nine touchdowns in 11 games this decade. He earned four Pro Bowl berths and was voted All-Pro in 2012 when he rushed for a career-best 1,590 yards.


    The fourth spot is fine for Marshawn, but I'm not sure I agree with much of that list. ADP and McCoy are a clear top 2, but I really don't like Gore at #3. I guess it depends on what you value, and I think Gore deserves to be lauded for his incredible longevity, but I like the high-end seasons of Lynch, Charles, and Foster over Gore's steady decade. Matter of preference I guess.
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 5800
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


  • Rat wrote:A pretty good amount of respect in these rankings.

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... he-decade/

    3. Russell Wilson. A Super Bowl champion in only his second season, Wilson has become one of the most dangerous quarterbacks, with his underrated passing skills and uncanny mobility. The highest-paid player in league history, the Seahawks wisely have built the team around a guy who is destined to be one of the Top 10 quarterbacks of the next decade, too.


    I like that spot for Russ, behind Brady and Rodgers, but ahead of Brees. If we want to get really greedy, the durability argument could be made against Rodgers, but for now, I think this is fair. May be worth revisiting depending on what happens in the postseason though.

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... he-decade/

    4. Marshawn Lynch: Lynch is back with the Seahawks just in time to close out the decade in style. He has 7,778 rushing yards and 67 rushing touchdowns this decade and another 1,551 receiving yards and eight touchdowns on 194 receptions. Lynch was at his best in the postseason, too, with 937 rushing yards and nine touchdowns in 11 games this decade. He earned four Pro Bowl berths and was voted All-Pro in 2012 when he rushed for a career-best 1,590 yards.


    The fourth spot is fine for Marshawn, but I'm not sure I agree with much of that list. ADP and McCoy are a clear top 2, but I really don't like Gore at #3. I guess it depends on what you value, and I think Gore deserves to be lauded for his incredible longevity, but I like the high-end seasons of Lynch, Charles, and Foster over Gore's steady decade. Matter of preference I guess.


    Gore over Lynch ?, ah hell no!!
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7287
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • What has Rodgers done that puts him above russ? Its not wins, stats or records ... And he has had a much better set of offensive weapons vs Russ.
    Ambrose83
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1497
    Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:54 pm


Re: PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade
Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:49 am
  • Isn't amazing how little play this has gotten.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2700
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Ambrose83 wrote:What has Rodgers done that puts him above russ? Its not wins, stats or records ... And he has had a much better set of offensive weapons vs Russ.

    Actually... Rodgers has better stats, that isn't even arguable. In this decade he also has a Super Bowl win and two MVP awards under his belt. As much as people like to hate on him around here, Rodgers has been a damn good QB this decade. Not only that, Rodgers is one of the few QBs that has higher efficiency numbers than Wilson during this time period. I don't see any sort of defensible argument for Wilson being above Rodgers here. The only thing Wilson has on Rodgers from a numbers prospective is durability really.

    The next thing I see people saying is "what about wins?". This is true, but we also must remember that football is a team sport. Rodgers did have better wide receivers and offensive lines (though some years his line was bad). Wilson had a better running back, and TEs than the Packers during this point I would say. Even our wide receivers were no slouches. During our Super Bowl run Wilson had Baldwin, Tate and Miller, all three of whom have earned pro-bowls or had pro bowl accolades in the past in addition to Lynch who was vastly better than anyone the Packers have fielded at RB since 2012. Wilson also had the best defensive unit of this generation for several years during this time.

    If we take the whole body of the 2010s I don't see how you can realistically put Wilson over Rodgers. There certainly isn't a strong statistical case. Wins is really the only case that anyone can make in this situation, but as we covered -- not the best metric given the other moving pieces. This is especially true given that they both teams have a good records and have similar post season successes since 2010. The difference is Rodgers has better stats plus two MVPs and it could be argued that he should've walked away with three MVPs. He is also one of the few QBs that have better aggregated stats than Wilson does during this period.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with where Wilson is placed.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3298
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am


  • There is recency bias at play. Rodgers from 2010-2015 was all world. Russ really developed as a passer in 2015 and has been better since. But even Russ good years don’t surpass Rodgers early decade excellence. He deserves the 2 spot. And maybe the 1 spot over Brady who’s only claim to that spot comes from SB wins not stats.
    Mad Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1728
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:12 am


Re: PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade
Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:45 am
  • Mad Dog wrote:There is recency bias at play. Rodgers from 2010-2015 was all world. Russ really developed as a passer in 2015 and has been better since. But even Russ good years don’t surpass Rodgers early decade excellence. He deserves the 2 spot. And maybe the 1 spot over Brady who’s only claim to that spot comes from SB wins not stats.


    Yet your claiming Rodgers was all world in almost a pure passing offense based on stats. There are more to things then stats, how a player elevates a team, leadership etc.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 30392
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade
Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:04 am
  • chris98251 wrote:
    Mad Dog wrote:There is recency bias at play. Rodgers from 2010-2015 was all world. Russ really developed as a passer in 2015 and has been better since. But even Russ good years don’t surpass Rodgers early decade excellence. He deserves the 2 spot. And maybe the 1 spot over Brady who’s only claim to that spot comes from SB wins not stats.


    Yet your claiming Rodgers was all world in almost a pure passing offense based on stats. There are more to things then stats, how a player elevates a team, leadership etc.


    Did Rodgers not do that?

    Feel like he made quite a few average WRs and TEs pretty rich men through his abilities.

    Im not sure there is a right answer on which has been better, though.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 17322
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


Re: PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade
Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:13 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Mad Dog wrote:There is recency bias at play. Rodgers from 2010-2015 was all world. Russ really developed as a passer in 2015 and has been better since. But even Russ good years don’t surpass Rodgers early decade excellence. He deserves the 2 spot. And maybe the 1 spot over Brady who’s only claim to that spot comes from SB wins not stats.


    Yet your claiming Rodgers was all world in almost a pure passing offense based on stats. There are more to things then stats, how a player elevates a team, leadership etc.


    Did Rodgers not do that?

    Feel like he made quite a few average WRs and TEs pretty rich men through his abilities.

    Im not sure there is a right answer on which has been better, though.


    Yeah he can throw, most NFL QB's can, he can throw guys open fewer NFL QB's can do that, but he alienates coaches and team mates, throws tantrums and hissy fits, whines and goes off on his players, now sometimes it's warranted depending on degree, but he has history of going to the screaming extreme.

    That's not elevating the team around you and being a leader, it's short lived typically.


    Its an observation and the list covers eras so numbers and stats are not the only thing they look at.

    Look at who's on it and you will understand what I am saying if you seen some of the past eras QB play.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 30392
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade
Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:39 pm
  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    Ambrose83 wrote:What has Rodgers done that puts him above russ? Its not wins, stats or records ... And he has had a much better set of offensive weapons vs Russ.

    Actually... Rodgers has better stats, that isn't even arguable. In this decade he also has a Super Bowl win and two MVP awards under his belt. As much as people like to hate on him around here, Rodgers has been a damn good QB this decade. Not only that, Rodgers is one of the few QBs that has higher efficiency numbers than Wilson during this time period. I don't see any sort of defensible argument for Wilson being above Rodgers here. The only thing Wilson has on Rodgers from a numbers prospective is durability really.

    The next thing I see people saying is "what about wins?". This is true, but we also must remember that football is a team sport. Rodgers did have better wide receivers and offensive lines (though some years his line was bad). Wilson had a better running back, and TEs than the Packers during this point I would say. Even our wide receivers were no slouches. During our Super Bowl run Wilson had Baldwin, Tate and Miller, all three of whom have earned pro-bowls or had pro bowl accolades in the past in addition to Lynch who was vastly better than anyone the Packers have fielded at RB since 2012. Wilson also had the best defensive unit of this generation for several years during this time.

    If we take the whole body of the 2010s I don't see how you can realistically put Wilson over Rodgers. There certainly isn't a strong statistical case. Wins is really the only case that anyone can make in this situation, but as we covered -- not the best metric given the other moving pieces. This is especially true given that they both teams have a good records and have similar post season successes since 2010. The difference is Rodgers has better stats plus two MVPs and it could be argued that he should've walked away with three MVPs. He is also one of the few QBs that have better aggregated stats than Wilson does during this period.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with where Wilson is placed.



    Rodgers peak is greater than Russell’s peak, but we should at least have a holistic discussion about this. To start, pretending as if Baldwin or Tate were elite talents, particularly in their early years is disingenuous. Jordy Nelson and Greg Jennings were better, and Rodgers had a better O-line.

    McCarthy’s offense didn’t prioritize a running game but again, it was an offense that worked in terms of prioritizing the passing game. Taking into the entire body of work since Wilson has entered the league, I’m actually not sure how you can argue from a PRODUCTION standpoint that Rodgers was better. Again, Rodgers had 2-3 peak years, but Russell has averaged 30 touchdowns and around 4000 yards every year he’s been in the league. Unless you’re completely negating his rushing attempts. Wilson has also, unlike Rodgers never been in a pass first offense, so technically his stats shouldn’t even come close.

    Wilson has consistently overcome more obstacles than Rodgers in this decade. And quite frankly, as much as football is a team game being a great Quarterback is also about decision making. Aaron has the better ARM talent. But his decision making is likely why since 2012 going into this year he was 17-26-1 against teams with a winning record. And something like 1-37 when trailing in the 4th quarter to a team with a winning record. He also doesn’t have a great road record. Those are Cousins type numbers.

    Rodgers has more “wow” throws. Similar to the way Manning had more “wow” throws than Brady. But Quarterback is the most impactful position on the field and there simply isn’t any excuse for Rodgers coming up short consistently. If he’s that much better than Wilson the numbers should be better
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1368
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:05 am


Re: PFT's Top 10 QBs and RBs of the Decade
Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:57 pm
  • I don't disagree with RW at number 3, but Lynch should be over Gore IMO. Other than that pretty good list.
    kf3339
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 3072
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:52 pm


  • Scorpion05 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:
    Ambrose83 wrote:What has Rodgers done that puts him above russ? Its not wins, stats or records ... And he has had a much better set of offensive weapons vs Russ.

    Actually... Rodgers has better stats, that isn't even arguable. In this decade he also has a Super Bowl win and two MVP awards under his belt. As much as people like to hate on him around here, Rodgers has been a damn good QB this decade. Not only that, Rodgers is one of the few QBs that has higher efficiency numbers than Wilson during this time period. I don't see any sort of defensible argument for Wilson being above Rodgers here. The only thing Wilson has on Rodgers from a numbers prospective is durability really.

    The next thing I see people saying is "what about wins?". This is true, but we also must remember that football is a team sport. Rodgers did have better wide receivers and offensive lines (though some years his line was bad). Wilson had a better running back, and TEs than the Packers during this point I would say. Even our wide receivers were no slouches. During our Super Bowl run Wilson had Baldwin, Tate and Miller, all three of whom have earned pro-bowls or had pro bowl accolades in the past in addition to Lynch who was vastly better than anyone the Packers have fielded at RB since 2012. Wilson also had the best defensive unit of this generation for several years during this time.

    If we take the whole body of the 2010s I don't see how you can realistically put Wilson over Rodgers. There certainly isn't a strong statistical case. Wins is really the only case that anyone can make in this situation, but as we covered -- not the best metric given the other moving pieces. This is especially true given that they both teams have a good records and have similar post season successes since 2010. The difference is Rodgers has better stats plus two MVPs and it could be argued that he should've walked away with three MVPs. He is also one of the few QBs that have better aggregated stats than Wilson does during this period.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with where Wilson is placed.



    Rodgers peak is greater than Russell’s peak, but we should at least have a holistic discussion about this. To start, pretending as if Baldwin or Tate were elite talents, particularly in their early years is disingenuous. Jordy Nelson and Greg Jennings were better, and Rodgers had a better O-line.

    McCarthy’s offense didn’t prioritize a running game but again, it was an offense that worked in terms of prioritizing the passing game. Taking into the entire body of work since Wilson has entered the league, I’m actually not sure how you can argue from a PRODUCTION standpoint that Rodgers was better. Again, Rodgers had 2-3 peak years, but Russell has averaged 30 touchdowns and around 4000 yards every year he’s been in the league. Unless you’re completely negating his rushing attempts. Wilson has also, unlike Rodgers never been in a pass first offense, so technically his stats shouldn’t even come close.

    Wilson has consistently overcome more obstacles than Rodgers in this decade. And quite frankly, as much as football is a team game being a great Quarterback is also about decision making. Aaron has the better ARM talent. But his decision making is likely why since 2012 going into this year he was 17-26-1 against teams with a winning record. And something like 1-37 when trailing in the 4th quarter to a team with a winning record. He also doesn’t have a great road record. Those are Cousins type numbers.

    Rodgers has more “wow” throws. Similar to the way Manning had more “wow” throws than Brady. But Quarterback is the most impactful position on the field and there simply isn’t any excuse for Rodgers coming up short consistently. If he’s that much better than Wilson the numbers should be better

    Rodgers had just a few peak years? You're reaching my friend.

    2010 - 65.7% completion, 3992 yards, 28 TDs, 11 INT, 356 yards rushing, 4 TDs
    2011 - 68.3% completion, 4643 yards, 45 TDs, 6 INT, 257 yards rushing, 3 TDs
    2012 - 67.3% completion, 4295 yards, 39 TDs, 8 INT, 259 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2013(injured)
    2014 - 65.6% completion, 4381 yards, 38TDs, 5 INT, 269 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2015 - 60.7% completion, 3821 yards, 31 TDs, 8 INT, 344 yards rushing 1 TDs
    2016 - 65.7% completion, 4428 yards, 40 TDs, 7 INT, 369 yards rushing 4 TDs
    2017(injured)
    2018 - 62.3 completion, 4,442 yards, 25 TD, 2 INT, 269 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2019 - 63.4% completion, 3,679, 24 TD, 3 INT, 181 yards rushing, 1 TD

    This is more than just a "few good years". In half of the years that Rodgers was healthy he had over 40 TDs. That is four years this decade. Russell Wilson by contrast has never had a 40 TD season even if you factor in his rushing. Many QBs never hit 40 TDs let alone do it four times. This is more than just "oh he had a few good years". Aside from the last two years, every year that he has been healthy he has hit 30 TDs and 4000 plus yards, the benchmark that you set.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3298
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am


  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    Scorpion05 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:
    Ambrose83 wrote:What has Rodgers done that puts him above russ? Its not wins, stats or records ... And he has had a much better set of offensive weapons vs Russ.

    Actually... Rodgers has better stats, that isn't even arguable. In this decade he also has a Super Bowl win and two MVP awards under his belt. As much as people like to hate on him around here, Rodgers has been a damn good QB this decade. Not only that, Rodgers is one of the few QBs that has higher efficiency numbers than Wilson during this time period. I don't see any sort of defensible argument for Wilson being above Rodgers here. The only thing Wilson has on Rodgers from a numbers prospective is durability really.

    The next thing I see people saying is "what about wins?". This is true, but we also must remember that football is a team sport. Rodgers did have better wide receivers and offensive lines (though some years his line was bad). Wilson had a better running back, and TEs than the Packers during this point I would say. Even our wide receivers were no slouches. During our Super Bowl run Wilson had Baldwin, Tate and Miller, all three of whom have earned pro-bowls or had pro bowl accolades in the past in addition to Lynch who was vastly better than anyone the Packers have fielded at RB since 2012. Wilson also had the best defensive unit of this generation for several years during this time.

    If we take the whole body of the 2010s I don't see how you can realistically put Wilson over Rodgers. There certainly isn't a strong statistical case. Wins is really the only case that anyone can make in this situation, but as we covered -- not the best metric given the other moving pieces. This is especially true given that they both teams have a good records and have similar post season successes since 2010. The difference is Rodgers has better stats plus two MVPs and it could be argued that he should've walked away with three MVPs. He is also one of the few QBs that have better aggregated stats than Wilson does during this period.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with where Wilson is placed.



    Rodgers peak is greater than Russell’s peak, but we should at least have a holistic discussion about this. To start, pretending as if Baldwin or Tate were elite talents, particularly in their early years is disingenuous. Jordy Nelson and Greg Jennings were better, and Rodgers had a better O-line.

    McCarthy’s offense didn’t prioritize a running game but again, it was an offense that worked in terms of prioritizing the passing game. Taking into the entire body of work since Wilson has entered the league, I’m actually not sure how you can argue from a PRODUCTION standpoint that Rodgers was better. Again, Rodgers had 2-3 peak years, but Russell has averaged 30 touchdowns and around 4000 yards every year he’s been in the league. Unless you’re completely negating his rushing attempts. Wilson has also, unlike Rodgers never been in a pass first offense, so technically his stats shouldn’t even come close.

    Wilson has consistently overcome more obstacles than Rodgers in this decade. And quite frankly, as much as football is a team game being a great Quarterback is also about decision making. Aaron has the better ARM talent. But his decision making is likely why since 2012 going into this year he was 17-26-1 against teams with a winning record. And something like 1-37 when trailing in the 4th quarter to a team with a winning record. He also doesn’t have a great road record. Those are Cousins type numbers.

    Rodgers has more “wow” throws. Similar to the way Manning had more “wow” throws than Brady. But Quarterback is the most impactful position on the field and there simply isn’t any excuse for Rodgers coming up short consistently. If he’s that much better than Wilson the numbers should be better

    Rodgers had just a few peak years? You're reaching my friend.

    2010 - 65.7% completion, 3992 yards, 28 TDs, 11 INT, 356 yards rushing, 4 TDs
    2011 - 68.3% completion, 4643 yards, 45 TDs, 6 INT, 257 yards rushing, 3 TDs
    2012 - 67.3% completion, 4295 yards, 39 TDs, 8 INT, 259 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2013(injured)
    2014 - 65.6% completion, 4381 yards, 38TDs, 5 INT, 269 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2015 - 60.7% completion, 3821 yards, 31 TDs, 8 INT, 344 yards rushing 1 TDs
    2016 - 65.7% completion, 4428 yards, 40 TDs, 7 INT, 369 yards rushing 4 TDs
    2017(injured)
    2018 - 62.3 completion, 4,442 yards, 25 TD, 2 INT, 269 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2019 - 63.4% completion, 3,679, 24 TD, 3 INT, 181 yards rushing, 1 TD

    This is more than just a "few good years". In half of the years that Rodgers was healthy he had over 40 TDs. That is four years this decade. Russell Wilson by contrast has never had a 40 TD season even if you factor in his rushing. Many QBs never hit 40 TDs let alone do it four times. This is more than just "oh he had a few good years". Aside from the last two years, every year that he has been healthy he has hit 30 TDs and 4000 plus yards, the benchmark that you set.


    I have no problem with WIlson being were he is at.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2700
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:
    Scorpion05 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:Actually... Rodgers has better stats, that isn't even arguable. In this decade he also has a Super Bowl win and two MVP awards under his belt. As much as people like to hate on him around here, Rodgers has been a damn good QB this decade. Not only that, Rodgers is one of the few QBs that has higher efficiency numbers than Wilson during this time period. I don't see any sort of defensible argument for Wilson being above Rodgers here. The only thing Wilson has on Rodgers from a numbers prospective is durability really.

    The next thing I see people saying is "what about wins?". This is true, but we also must remember that football is a team sport. Rodgers did have better wide receivers and offensive lines (though some years his line was bad). Wilson had a better running back, and TEs than the Packers during this point I would say. Even our wide receivers were no slouches. During our Super Bowl run Wilson had Baldwin, Tate and Miller, all three of whom have earned pro-bowls or had pro bowl accolades in the past in addition to Lynch who was vastly better than anyone the Packers have fielded at RB since 2012. Wilson also had the best defensive unit of this generation for several years during this time.

    If we take the whole body of the 2010s I don't see how you can realistically put Wilson over Rodgers. There certainly isn't a strong statistical case. Wins is really the only case that anyone can make in this situation, but as we covered -- not the best metric given the other moving pieces. This is especially true given that they both teams have a good records and have similar post season successes since 2010. The difference is Rodgers has better stats plus two MVPs and it could be argued that he should've walked away with three MVPs. He is also one of the few QBs that have better aggregated stats than Wilson does during this period.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with where Wilson is placed.



    Rodgers peak is greater than Russell’s peak, but we should at least have a holistic discussion about this. To start, pretending as if Baldwin or Tate were elite talents, particularly in their early years is disingenuous. Jordy Nelson and Greg Jennings were better, and Rodgers had a better O-line.

    McCarthy’s offense didn’t prioritize a running game but again, it was an offense that worked in terms of prioritizing the passing game. Taking into the entire body of work since Wilson has entered the league, I’m actually not sure how you can argue from a PRODUCTION standpoint that Rodgers was better. Again, Rodgers had 2-3 peak years, but Russell has averaged 30 touchdowns and around 4000 yards every year he’s been in the league. Unless you’re completely negating his rushing attempts. Wilson has also, unlike Rodgers never been in a pass first offense, so technically his stats shouldn’t even come close.

    Wilson has consistently overcome more obstacles than Rodgers in this decade. And quite frankly, as much as football is a team game being a great Quarterback is also about decision making. Aaron has the better ARM talent. But his decision making is likely why since 2012 going into this year he was 17-26-1 against teams with a winning record. And something like 1-37 when trailing in the 4th quarter to a team with a winning record. He also doesn’t have a great road record. Those are Cousins type numbers.

    Rodgers has more “wow” throws. Similar to the way Manning had more “wow” throws than Brady. But Quarterback is the most impactful position on the field and there simply isn’t any excuse for Rodgers coming up short consistently. If he’s that much better than Wilson the numbers should be better

    Rodgers had just a few peak years? You're reaching my friend.

    2010 - 65.7% completion, 3992 yards, 28 TDs, 11 INT, 356 yards rushing, 4 TDs
    2011 - 68.3% completion, 4643 yards, 45 TDs, 6 INT, 257 yards rushing, 3 TDs
    2012 - 67.3% completion, 4295 yards, 39 TDs, 8 INT, 259 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2013(injured)
    2014 - 65.6% completion, 4381 yards, 38TDs, 5 INT, 269 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2015 - 60.7% completion, 3821 yards, 31 TDs, 8 INT, 344 yards rushing 1 TDs
    2016 - 65.7% completion, 4428 yards, 40 TDs, 7 INT, 369 yards rushing 4 TDs
    2017(injured)
    2018 - 62.3 completion, 4,442 yards, 25 TD, 2 INT, 269 yards rushing, 2 TDs
    2019 - 63.4% completion, 3,679, 24 TD, 3 INT, 181 yards rushing, 1 TD

    This is more than just a "few good years". In half of the years that Rodgers was healthy he had over 40 TDs. That is four years this decade. Russell Wilson by contrast has never had a 40 TD season even if you factor in his rushing. Many QBs never hit 40 TDs let alone do it four times. This is more than just "oh he had a few good years". Aside from the last two years, every year that he has been healthy he has hit 30 TDs and 4000 plus yards, the benchmark that you set.


    I have no problem with WIlson being were he is at.

    Yeah, and let us be real here that is no slight to Wilson. Tom Brady and Rodgers are most likely first ballot hall of famers, and for our guy to be in the same breath as those two is quite the honor, especially considering our head coaches tendencies.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3298
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am


  • Hard to put Gore below Lynch. He is a HOF maybe first ballot.
    justafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1880
    Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:37 am




It is currently Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:20 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online