Aaron Rodgers is already better than Farve ever was

[track 1 16]

no debatin about this one. im 37. seen farves whole career

[IMMensaMind 459]

no debatin about this one. im 37. seen farves whole career

 

I absolutely agree. He's on a completely different level. Favre was fun like a rollercoaster. Rodgers is fun like a Ferrari.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I absolutely agree. He's on a completely different level. Favre was fun like puking on a rollercoaster. Rodgers is fun like getting roadhead in a Ferrari.

 

fixed for emphasis.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

So you don't think Favre measures up to Rodgers? Did he text you or sumpin?

[shovelheadt 62]

So you don't think Favre measures up to Rodgers? Did he text you or sumpin?

 

No, he doesn't. And we're not even factoring in the professionalism aspect of it. I hope Rodgers wins another SB so we'll never hear Favre's name mentioned again.

[roroco 75]

So you don't think Favre measures up to Rodgers? Did he text you or sumpin?

His nick name isn't A-Rod because his name is Aaron Rodgers.

[IGotWorms 3,321]

Was that supposed to be a controversial statement?

[Joey Gladstone 33]

Yeah, don't think you'll get much opposition to this statement around here.

[shorepatrol 1,737]

Favre was fun like a rollercoaster. Rodgers is fun like a Ferrari.

+1

[Doozer 0]

Favre was an overhyped product of the media. His best attribute was his longevity, and that should be pretty telling. Dude's blown more games than a crack ######.

[Matt Mueller 146]

Agreed Rodgers is the man and IMO right now the best qb I've ever seen play.

 

I came up with a theory that part of the reason they are so successful right now is bc of their receiver by committe approach. They are impossibly tough to game plan for and it is my belief that the committee approach keeps everyone active in the game. You know how sometimes you hear about star receiver- moss or someone- taking a play off.

Well I think in green bay since they don't neceasairy know

in acfance where the ball is going it keeps all receivers

engaged, trying to get open and get deep. I really believe

this is a huge part of their success right now.

 

 

I think they have a real chance at an undefeated superbowl season.

[Phurfur 70]

He beat out Favre in 2008, that is what still ticks Favre off.

[jackjohn 31]

Favre was an overhyped product of the media. His best attribute was his longevity, and that should be pretty telling. Dude's blown more games than a crack ######.

I've been saying this for awhile now. And I always get dismissed cause I live in Wisconsin. I've never been a Packer fan and never will be. But I gotta admit that Rodgers looks like he could be something special.

Speaking of the media hyping Favre, I sure dont miss hearing about Maddens mancrush on him anymore!

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

If healthy, A. Rodgers will be right up there as one of the greatest QB to every play the game.

 

Truthly, Farve isn't even in that discussion. Currently i have the following active QB (P. Manning, T. Brady) ahead of Farve in the all time list.

[The Moz 69]

not saying he isn't better

 

but give Favre in his prime a freakish TE in Finley - 4 really solid WR's and a really good defense and maybe he is even better - just saying -- Favre had garbage at WR his whole career -- he made them good.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

Agreed Rodgers is the man and IMO right now the best qb I've ever seen play.

 

Young > Rodgers hth

[MedStudent 56]

Favre had garbage at WR his whole career -- he made them good.

 

In his first 3 years with GB, he had Sterling Sharpe, who was better than anyone Rogers has ever had.

[DaDanimal 2]

not saying he isn't better

 

but give Favre in his prime a freakish TE in Finley - 4 really solid WR's and a really good defense and maybe he is even better - just saying -- Favre had garbage at WR his whole career -- he made them good.

 

I hope Antonio Freeman slaps you in the mouth

[jerryskids 5,213]

Favre had garbage at WR his whole career -- he made them good.

 

Sterling Sharpe called to tell you you are ignorant.

[AlamoReg 1]

Sterling Sharpe called to tell you you are ignorant.

 

Robert Brooks was a hell of a receiver too

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

i would also rather have Dorsey Levens or Ahman Green coming out of the backfield than Grant or Starks. You remember how many screens they used to throw?

[IGotWorms 3,321]

Favre had garbage at WR his whole career -- he made them good.

 

What a dumb post. Favre had some pretty great receivers, as others have pointed out. I'd add the pervert Mark Chmura to the list too.

[track 1 16]

farve had some pretty good wr's tbh

[zmanzzzz 1]

I'd add the pervert Mark Chmura to the list too.

 

you are just jealous

[jackjohn 31]

I think that White, Jones, Gilbert, etc would have an issue with the no defense comment. And those screen passes really help out a qb's completion %.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

Rodger's currently have a career 101.2 passer rating.

 

Farve finished at 86.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

Rodger's currently have a career 101.2 passer rating.

 

Farve finished at 86.

 

Manning at 94

Brady at 95

[Houston Texans 10]

Rodger's currently have a career 101.2 passer rating.

 

Farve finished at 86.

Rodgers has been the starter in GB for 3+ years, after getting to sit and learn for 3 years to start his career. In addition, he "inherited" a team that was dominant before he became the starting QB (13-3, lost in the NFC Championship the year before he got the job). His teams Defense has been top-5 in two of his 3 years as starter (the one year when it wasn't, he had his worst year as a starter-2008).

 

Favre didn't have the luxury of getting to sit for 3 years and become comfortable in the offense. He was thrown into the starters role in the middle of his 2nd season (his first in GB). He "inherited" a 4-win team, and nearly led them to a division title in his first season in GB. His teams' defenses in his first 3 full years as starter were in the top-10 twice, and 14th the 3rd year.

 

So, let's compare.

 

Rodgers' 1st 3 full years as starter:

1003 completions, 1552 attempts, 65% completion, 86 passing TDs, 31 INTs, 13 rush TDs, average QB rating of 99.4, W-L record of 27-20.

 

Favre's 1st 3 full years as starter:

1040 completions, 1674 attempts, 62% completion, 90 passing TDs, 51 INTs, 6 rush TDs, average QB rating of 87.5, W-L record of 29-19.

 

So, at this point in their careers, one could argue that Rodgers is better than Favre was. However, you have to consider the fact that Favre became a starter much earlier in his career than Rodgers did, and he had to "learn on the job," while Rodgers was able to hold the clipboard, and learn how to read/react to NFL defenses without having to throw picks, incompletions, etc in game situations while learning.

 

Also, you must consider that Favre's 3rd year as starter was the first of 3 consecutive MVP years for Favre. If Rodgers continues to play at his level for this year (and the next 2), he could join Favre. However, Rodgers isn't better than Favre ever was. At best, you could say he is on his way to being as good or better than Favre, but he isn't there yet.

[beemo 0]

Rodgers' 1st 3 full years as starter:

1003 completions, 1552 attempts, 65% completion, 86 passing TDs, 31 INTs, 13 rush TDs, average QB rating of 99.4, W-L record of 27-20.

 

Favre's 1st 3 full years as starter:

1040 completions, 1674 attempts, 62% completion, 90 passing TDs, 51 INTs, 6 rush TDs, average QB rating of 87.5, W-L record of 29-19.

 

Peyton Manning's 1st 3 full years as starter:

1,014 completions, 1,679 attempts, 60% completion, 85 passing TDs, 58 INTs, 3 rush TDs, average QB rating of 85.5, W-L record of 26-22

 

Remember that Manning went 3-13 in his first year, struggling as most rookie QBs will, then went 13-3 the following season. It can be argued that Rodgers benefited from sitting on the bench for three years, but I don't buy it, at least to the extent people attribute much of his success for it. After all, Favre did nothing to assist his development, and all Rodgers gained was the loss of a few years of his youth when he could have been on the field playing. If Rodgers is of Peyton's caliber, then it'd stand to reason that his struggles had he been put on the field early would have been short lived.

 

In addition, how long did Jim Sorgi and Curtis Painter hold a clipboard on the bench working under Manning? By the same logic, they should be veritable football gods.

[Cruzer 1,992]

not saying he isn't better

 

but give Favre in his prime a freakish TE in Finley - 4 really solid WR's and a really good defense and maybe he is even better - just saying -- Favre had garbage at WR his whole career -- he made them good.

I think even if you were to give Favre a stacked wr corps he'd still be a gunslinger - tossing and turning the ball over at the very worst of times. Rodgers may not have the arm Favre had, few in the history of the game ever have - but his arm is still big and he has a football intelligence Favre could never touch.

[Houston Texans 10]

Peyton Manning's 1st 3 full years as starter:

1,014 completions, 1,679 attempts, 60% completion, 85 passing TDs, 58 INTs, 3 rush TDs, average QB rating of 85.5, W-L record of 26-22

 

Remember that Manning went 3-13 in his first year, struggling as most rookie QBs will, then went 13-3 the following season. It can be argued that Rodgers benefited from sitting on the bench for three years, but I don't buy it, at least to the extent people attribute much of his success for it. After all, Favre did nothing to assist his development, and all Rodgers gained was the loss of a few years of his youth when he could have been on the field playing. If Rodgers is of Peyton's caliber, then it'd stand to reason that his struggles had he been put on the field early would have been short lived.

 

In addition, how long did Jim Sorgi and Curtis Painter hold a clipboard on the bench working under Manning? By the same logic, they should be veritable football gods.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The benefit that I think Rodgers derived from sitting for the first 3years of his career were in understanding the Packers system, and not having to learn "under fire." He obviously was (and is) incredibly talented. But you have to believe that if he had started from day one, his INTs would have been higher, and his completion % would have been lower. You, yourself provided anectodal evidence of this, when you cited Peyton's rookie year. Look at his INTs that year compared to the rest of his career. Look at his completion % that year compared to the rest of his career. Rodgers numbers are slightly better than Favre's (at these points in their careers), but that can (at least) partially be attributed to being able to sit and learn early.

[R8RMick 242]

Rodgers has been the starter in GB for 3+ years, after getting to sit and learn for 3 years to start his career. In addition, he "inherited" a team that was dominant before he became the starting QB (13-3, lost in the NFC Championship the year before he got the job). His teams Defense has been top-5 in two of his 3 years as starter (the one year when it wasn't, he had his worst year as a starter-2008).

 

Favre didn't have the luxury of getting to sit for 3 years and become comfortable in the offense. He was thrown into the starters role in the middle of his 2nd season (his first in GB). He "inherited" a 4-win team, and nearly led them to a division title in his first season in GB. His teams' defenses in his first 3 full years as starter were in the top-10 twice, and 14th the 3rd year.

 

So, let's compare.

 

Rodgers' 1st 3 full years as starter:

1003 completions, 1552 attempts, 65% completion, 86 passing TDs, 31 INTs, 13 rush TDs, average QB rating of 99.4, W-L record of 27-20.

 

Favre's 1st 3 full years as starter:

1040 completions, 1674 attempts, 62% completion, 90 passing TDs, 51 INTs, 6 rush TDs, average QB rating of 87.5, W-L record of 29-19.

 

So, at this point in their careers, one could argue that Rodgers is better than Favre was. However, you have to consider the fact that Favre became a starter much earlier in his career than Rodgers did, and he had to "learn on the job," while Rodgers was able to hold the clipboard, and learn how to read/react to NFL defenses without having to throw picks, incompletions, etc in game situations while learning.

 

Also, you must consider that Favre's 3rd year as starter was the first of 3 consecutive MVP years for Favre. If Rodgers continues to play at his level for this year (and the next 2), he could join Favre. However, Rodgers isn't better than Favre ever was. At best, you could say he is on his way to being as good or better than Favre, but he isn't there yet.

 

 

This is a great post, and simply put I don't know if Rodgers or anyone else will approach the career numbers that Favre has put up. I'm big on longevity (I think Bert Blylevin not being in the baseball HOF is a travesty.) Having said that, I think the subject here is the sheer efficiency, form, mechanics, mental grasp of the game, and leadership attitude of Aaron Rodgers. Taking a snapshot, right now in his situation, you'd be hard pressed to find a better NFL QB now or ever.

[TD Ryan2 314]

This is a great post, and simply put I don't know if Rodgers or anyone else will approach the career numbers that Favre has put up. I'm big on longevity (I think Bert Blylevin not being in the baseball HOF is a travesty.) Having said that, I think the subject here is the sheer efficiency, form, mechanics, mental grasp of the game, and leadership attitude of Aaron Rodgers. Taking a snapshot, right now in his situation, you'd be hard pressed to find a better NFL QB now or ever.

and this ain't a bad post either.

 

you touch on something very important when comparing players - Volume stats vs. Efficiency stats...

games played, total yards, total TDs, years played, etc = Volume stats

QB rating, TD/INT ratio, YardsPerAttempt, Completion %, etc = efficiency stats.

 

What I've come to believe is that the efficiency stats are more important; they tell more about who won/lost and who was actually great.

 

Not that I'm saying Rodgers > Favre (yet), but he's well on his way - he's a more efficient, lethal offensive weapon.

[Mike Honcho 4,042]

This is a great post, and simply put I don't know if Rodgers or anyone else will approach the career numbers that Favre has put up. I'm big on longevity (I think Bert Blylevin not being in the baseball HOF is a travesty.) Having said that, I think the subject here is the sheer efficiency, form, mechanics, mental grasp of the game, and leadership attitude of Aaron Rodgers. Taking a snapshot, right now in his situation, you'd be hard pressed to find a better NFL QB now or ever.

 

pssst...Bert made the HOF this year.

[R8RMick 242]

Didn't catch that. Been a little busy.

[Phurfur 70]

These replies are very telling on the type of Football Fan the posters really are.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

and this ain't a bad post either.

 

you touch on something very important when comparing players - Volume stats vs. Efficiency stats...

games played, total yards, total TDs, years played, etc = Volume stats

QB rating, TD/INT ratio, YardsPerAttempt, Completion %, etc = efficiency stats.

 

What I've come to believe is that the efficiency stats are more important; they tell more about who won/lost and who was actually great.

 

Not that I'm saying Rodgers > Favre (yet), but he's well on his way - he's a more efficient, lethal offensive weapon.

Taking from this and dumbing it down, I'll say this as a Packer fan who has watched both. I watched Favre hoping he would not screw up with the big turnover while I watch Rodgers now expecting him to find the open WR.

[nobody 2,050]

not saying he isn't better

 

but give Favre in his prime a freakish TE in Finley - 4 really solid WR's and a really good defense and maybe he is even better - just saying -- Favre had garbage at WR his whole career -- he made them good.

 

 

Setrling Sharpe, Antonio Freeman, and Donald Driver weren't garbage, and Chumura and Keith Jackson weren't slouches at tightend either.

[Natetradomus 0]

I'm not a fan of either, but it's hard to say Rodgers is better than Favre ever was. If Rodgers has some freak accident and all of a sudden puts a string of bad seasons in a row, I'm sure a lot would be taking that statement back. I think a lot of hate for Favre stems from his attitude and pre-madonna like personality. He is a hall of famer and has won many great games. In addition to that, the NFL is much more of a passing league overall. You're seeing teams outscore some all time great teams such as the Montana led niners. What a lot of people don't realize is that Favre played when there were other dynasties - you had the great cowboys, the great niner teams and even some really good Giants teams. Hypothetically, you switch Rodgers on the old Packers teams and Favre in his prime with the current packers teams and you'll have the same results I'm sure. I seriously doubt a Rodgers led packer team in the 90s beats the cowboys or niners. When it's all said and done, I guess you have to compare each of their primes and like it or not, they are pretty even currently - one is just more likeable than the other. Sorta reminds me when Young took over for Montana (of course without the douchebaggery of Favre). Fans quickly forget the past.

 

On the topic of stats - ratings and all these other measures do not account for when a team is coming from behind or has to throw throw throw. Or injuries. It reminds me of the NBA when fans crap on a player because of his field goal percentage when that doesn't account for when a player has to chuck up a shot with .07 seconds on the shot clock after a timeout. For football, the most useful stat to compare quarterbacks would have to be red zone percentage I suppose. Come from behind wins only means your team wasn't good enough to keep a lead. QB ratings is a stat that does not truly show how good a QB is. There are so many factors that isn't included in it. Same with the new QBR or whatever it is called now ESPN has. The only true measure, which I hate to use, is titles, and even that still is comparing a watered down NFL with parody to another generation with dynasties.

[nobody 2,050]

I'm not a fan of either, but it's hard to say Rodgers is better than Favre ever was. If Rodgers has some freak accident and all of a sudden puts a string of bad seasons in a row, I'm sure a lot would be taking that statement back. I think a lot of hate for Favre stems from his attitude and pre-madonna like personality. He is a hall of famer and has won many great games. In addition to that, the NFL is much more of a passing league overall. You're seeing teams outscore some all time great teams such as the Montana led niners. What a lot of people don't realize is that Favre played when there were other dynasties - you had the great cowboys, the great niner teams and even some really good Giants teams. Hypothetically, you switch Rodgers on the old Packers teams and Favre in his prime with the current packers teams and you'll have the same results I'm sure. I seriously doubt a Rodgers led packer team in the 90s beats the cowboys or niners. When it's all said and done, I guess you have to compare each of their primes and like it or not, they are pretty even currently - one is just more likeable than the other. Sorta reminds me when Young took over for Montana (of course without the douchebaggery of Favre). Fans quickly forget the past.

 

Favre only retired this year. It's not like this big change to pass happy offenses happened this year. Plus Rodgers doesn't have the benefit of playing hopped up on pain meds, so he can't eke out those exra starts.