Where does Aaron Rodgers rank QB all-time?

He’s 5-10 right now, with a few years left to pad his stats to be on top of some all-time passing lists. It’s hard to like him, but that mainly stems from envy and jealousy watching Green Bay have 2 HOF QBs in a row. Peak Aaron Rodgers was some of the best QB play I’ve seen anyone at the position on the football field.

Yes, outside of PIT's extra SB win (in an extra 4 seasons), GB since 08', had indeed trumped PIT since 04' in the postseason. GB has more appearances and wins. Including beaten PIT in the SB. We have already covered this.

The game against the Giants in 2011 was just a single game, PIT and BAL have both had playoff losses that were as bad or worse then that. Didnt catch the Ravens-Titans playoff game?

Ahhh okay, so now you finally attempt to provide an excuse for why GB's postseason success safely beats PIT (since 04') and BAL (since 08'). Its because they never had the Pats in their conference. That's a very poor excuse to cling to, most would say the NFC has been a much better conference by and large this decade. And that excuse doesnt address why GB has more playoff appearances and division titles than BAL or PIT either.

Your point that GB could be more successful with Rodgers is valid, the idea that two teams that have been undeniably less successful in the regular season and playoffs however, (unless you unfairly afford PIT an extra 4 seasons for an extra ring, in which case, they still have less playoff appearances and playoff wins) is not.

It's one thing for you to continue to unfairly afford PIT an extra 4 seasons to try and skew their postseason success as better (despite their less postseason appearances and postseason wins over that bias timespan), but to stick by trying to argue that BAL is better than GB since 08' despite simply not winning as much in the regular season or postseason is just ridiculous. Have you honestly no shame? Do you think anyone here believes you even believe this?

Mike must not be paying that well with arguments like these.  I'll pass afterall.  First, you wrongly argued I was talking about Rodger's run when I was talking about the way franchises maximized their time with a particular QB.  You, again, can't understand this because you somehow think citing the Ravens-Titans game would be included.  You simply aren't worth the time becuase your fallacy-per-second rate is quite impressive.  Like Mike McCarthy's carb-per-second intake at a buffet I'm guessing.

Aaron Rodgers is the third best QB of his generation.  At times, on pure talent, I'd make a case he was the best.  He lags significantly behind Manning and Brady in all measures of success in the postseason, wins per season, and a host of other metrics.  With even part of the team building prowess of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Seattle behind him he'd likely have a record that looks much more like Manning and Brady.  Instead, he's closer to Philip Rivers or Joe Flacco....lesser QBs.  The Packers had an all-time, top 10 QB and mostly puttered around for twelve years.

Would any non-McCarthy paid spokespeople like to disagree about the Packers wasting 12 years of Aaron Rodgers?

If Rodgers finishes his career in Green Bay with just one Super Bowl appearance, that's a massive disappointment. Some years they've fielded solid rosters, but they've also gave him some poor support in the players and coaching around him.

Just off the top of my head id say rodgers is behind

Brady
Peyton
Montana
Elway
Marino
Bradshaw
Unitas
Aikman


Imo he's in the second tier all time with guys like Favre Ben Eli Moon Fouts

I'm sure there are some im missing but no way is rodgers top 10

are we just using stats as the measuring stick? Sorry. Imo there is more to being a qb than just piling up stats