No, yours is a shortsighted argument that takes for granted the very thing demanded of it to demonstrate.
What is talent? Prefontaine believed it was a myth. I do not, but the problem with talent is its ephemeral nature. It's impossible to concretely gauge when defined in an abstract sense as you guys are using it, here. Is it Tom's 40-yd dash time? Because if we are assessing physical attributes Aaron isn't the most talented QB we've ever seen, either. I used to enjoy the more philosophical think pieces by T-Nation S&C coaches over a decade ago. A moderator named
@Urban turned me onto a theologian with a specialty in track & field named Dan Johns, and I always appreciate the more philosophical approach to his articles. Few are better acquainted with the nebulous nature of the talent debate than these coaches. Dan once wrote a piece where he mused on the fact the most talented ultrarunner in history likely wouldn't be perceived as an extremely athletically gifted person in our culture because our sports revolve around strength and power, and these exceptional ultrarunners often had more mediocre potential for those pursuits. He mused on the fact the least controversial way to define talent was as the "capability to perform a certain task."
So what task is Aaron able to perform so well towards being the best QB that Tom cannot? The truth is the question of what it takes to be great at QB is as controversial and slippery as the question of how to define or quantify talent itself. There's always disagreement about where to focus a player's practice & gym sessions: what capabilities to develop. There is heated disagreement between coaches and scouts who will be the most valuable or talented recruit. You can talk about his weak arm, but it hasn't prevented Tom from marching down that field.
In the broadest sense I believe talent, the way it is being treated here, is similar to general strength carryover. The guy with the biggest squat might not be able to beat the guy with the best leg extension, but take those two around-the-world on leg day, and the guy who squats more is going to win. He has more "talent" (in this sense absolute strength of the legs and posterior chain).
You guys believe Aaron has the greater natural squat strength. I did, too, then Tom appeared in 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls, and won 2. Dude was 40 playing for it last year. So how do you prove that Aaron is more talented? The notion is that if you were picking teams with a rookie Tom Brady and rookie Aaron Rodgers both available you would take Rodgers. This decision would hinge on the belief that Aaron would prove more capable/successful with a wider array of teams than Tom would.
Where is the evidence for that? Because the one poster showed quite well, I think, that Tom has seen a revolving door of personnel, and he has managed to succeed wildly and consistently regardless of the other names on the lockers.
Objectively wrong. The "achievement" metric isn't just rings. Apparently this is confusing more than one of you (which is bizarre given how many of you are aware of my extreme distaste for this ESPN-driven talking heads logic with regard to basketball).
I most certainly did not point out Super Bowl wins as the "only" measuring stick. It's about regular season wins, longevity, and production, too. Aaron's shelf is light.
I find the level of irrational naysaying that Brady & the Patriots provoke to be one of the more curious phenomenons in American sport.
