That may be true, but being the best defender doesn't necessarily make him the best player. A team with Rodgers, Luck, or Brady would still be better than a team with just Watt. That's obviously the case now with the Texans, Colts, and Patriots. Of course the NFL has a QB/offensive bias, but it is what it is and that's the reality. So I want the player that will help my team the most given the current constructs of the league and the rules. That would be an elite QB, of which Aaron Rodgers is arguably the best. Luck isn't quite there yet. Too many interceptions. He'll likely get there, but not yet.
Originally Posted by: DoddPower
Absolutely. Best defender is the consolation prize. Rodgers "merely" being arguably the best, perhaps #2, QB in the league doesn't mean he isn't a better player than JJ Watt, it means that Watt being the best defender in the league puts him in a tier below all of the elite QBs. Watt may be more better, relative to his peers, than Rodgers is, but again, that doesn't mean anything tangible here. Swapping Rodgers for Watt would make the Packers a worse team, thus Rodgers is the better, more impactful player.
Also let's be totally honest here, Rodgers is as good as Watt is relative to his peers when you compare Rodgers to nearly all of the other QBs in the league. The fact that there are a few exceptionally good QBs doesn't take anything away from how great Rodgers is. You might find 4-5 QBs per year with similar stats to Rodgers, but if you look back over the past 5 years or so, he's the only one performing at that level consistently. That's why many say he's the best, at least in the regular season (in the playoffs, I would take Brady, Montana, or Starr).
If there was a draft tomorrow of all current players, I would take Rodgers, Luck, Brady, Brees, maybe even P Manning, Wilson, Rothlesburger or Romo before I would take JJ Watt. A superstar DE doesn't win many games, as evident by the Texan's W/L record the last few years.