Aaron Rodgers, the most complete Packer QB ever?

[Fritz]

I am pretty sure it was Holmgren who grabbed Schroeder's face mask.

Favre had tremendous, tremendous talent. I don't think anyone questions that. And under Holmgren, that talent was (mostly) harnessed. He was a wonderful QB to have in those years. But I do think that mythologizing kinda took over - John Madden did as much as anybody to help that along. He always, always said that "If you've got Brett Favre you've got a chance." This implied that no matter how sucky the team was or how far behind, Favre could pull it out.

But this spoke more to Favre's derring-do than his actual ability to consistently make good decisions. It's a romantic notion - we're never out of it cuz we got Favre! - but the greatest QB's in NFL history (Montana, Starr, Unitas) have more often been thought of as QB machines rather than dramatic action figures.

[RashanGary]

I am pretty sure it was Holmgren who grabbed Schroeder's face mask.

Favre had tremendous, tremendous talent. I don't think anyone questions that. And under Holmgren, that talent was (mostly) harnessed. He was a wonderful QB to have in those years. But I do think that mythologizing kinda took over - John Madden did as much as anybody to help that along. He always, always said that "If you've got Brett Favre you've got a chance." This implied that no matter how sucky the team was or how far behind, Favre could pull it out.

But this spoke more to Favre's derring-do than his actual ability to consistently make good decisions. It's a romantic notion - we're never out of it cuz we got Favre! - but the greatest QB's in NFL history (Montana, Starr, Unitas) have more often been thought of as QB machines rather than dramatic action figures.

AMAZING POST!!!!!!!!!

[Smeefers]

How is this an argument between Favre and Rodgers? Starr is by far the best Packers QB ever. Starr was absolutely great. Favre was great, but flawed and well, Rodgers is still young in his career. Nobody knows how good he's going to be, so he can't really be included in the conversation. If you only put in what Rodgers has done, then there's no way he is the best Packer QB ever. If you go on what he's going to do, well, should of could of would of arguments are flawed and useless. He could have more superbowls to come or he could kill his girlfriend next week and end up in prison. It's the future, its uncertain and undependable.

This should be a conversation comparing Favre to Starr and Starr is by far the all and out winner.

[vince]

This was (originally) about the "completeness" of their quarterbacking skills relative to one another, not the completeness of their careers.

[Smeefers]

I still stand by why I said then. Rodgers is still in the tween years of his career. He has a lot to improve on. He's very very good, but he can get much better. If this is as good as Rodgers gets, it's hard to call him the the most complelte QB, especially compared to Starr. Favre at his best is better than Rodgers has yet to be (although we did see a flash into the future with the Atlanta game), but Starr was the total package and by and far the most "complete" Packer QB.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...rterbacks.html

[Patler]

I still stand by why I said then. Rodgers is still in the tween years of his career. He has a lot to improve on. He's very very good, but he can get much better. If this is as good as Rodgers gets, it's hard to call him the the most complelte QB, especially compared to Starr. Favre at his best is better than Rodgers has yet to be (although we did see a flash into the future with the Atlanta game), but Starr was the total package and by and far the most "complete" Packer QB.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...rterbacks.html

Starr did not have the arm that Rodgers has, and that is what started this discussion. Rodgers is the most "complete", because he shows the abilities of Starr, but with a better arm; the abilities of Dickey, but with better legs; and the abilities of Favre, but with a better head.

Doesn't mean he is or will be judged the best, but he may be the most complete.

[RashanGary]

The way Aaron plays, when it comes to winning games, I'll take Aaron's game over Favre's. I compare Favre to an And-1 basketball player. It's entertaining as all giddup but it's all flash where AR's all finish. It's Allen Iverson vs Chauncey Billups. AI more spectacular. Billups gets it done.

[gbgary]

Favre at his best is better than Rodgers has yet to be

well...as great as bf was then, i think AR is better now. he's had a great three years statistically. his sacks due to holding the ball are basically gone, his ints are basically flukes (deflections or bad routes). the only thing keeping AR from rewriting the books are how long he wants/can play and the quality of the players around him (that's up to TT) and mm's playcalling. his superbowl would have been even greater had it not been for the dropped passes.

[bobblehead]

I still stand by why I said then. Rodgers is still in the tween years of his career. He has a lot to improve on. He's very very good, but he can get much better. If this is as good as Rodgers gets, it's hard to call him the the most complelte QB, especially compared to Starr. Favre at his best is better than Rodgers has yet to be (although we did see a flash into the future with the Atlanta game), but Starr was the total package and by and far the most "complete" Packer QB.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...rterbacks.html

Disagree completely. Right not, right here, ARod is superior to Favre at his best. I have said exactly what you are saying in the past about lets not declare ARod the better QB yet, but at this point he is simply smarter than BF ever was, and just as talented. If its really all about championships, then ARod has accomplished everything BF ever has. If thats not all its about, I'll still take this AR over the best BF that ever played (sadly, that BF played last year for Minnesota). Turnovers are the single most important stat in pro sports, and in that category there is no comparison between AR and BF. What Rodgers accomplished this post season is superior to any post season Favre ever played. He has shown us that, both men at their best, AR is better. He has shown class and humility. He has shown us a rocket arm and an analytical mind. He has shown us leadership. You show me one negative that Rodgers has displayed and it will be a new one to me.

[Patler]

Disagree completely. Right not, right here, ARod is superior to Favre at his best. I have said exactly what you are saying in the past about lets not declare ARod the better QB yet, but at this point he is simply smarter than BF ever was, and just as talented. If its really all about championships, then ARod has accomplished everything BF ever has. If thats not all its about, I'll still take this AR over the best BF that ever played (sadly, that BF played last year for Minnesota). Turnovers are the single most important stat in pro sports, and in that category there is no comparison between AR and BF. What Rodgers accomplished this post season is superior to any post season Favre ever played. He has shown us that, both men at their best, AR is better. He has shown class and humility. He has shown us a rocket arm and an analytical mind. He has shown us leadership. You show me one negative that Rodgers has displayed and it will be a new one to me.

It is going to take a while for people to realize that, but I agree with you.

[Freak Out]

Favre was a badass in his prime....he was a blast to watch play the game and gave it his all. I think Rodgers is a better QB at this stage because he does not make the game killing throws that Favre has become known for...hopefully he never starts. He should just get better and better...especially with coaching consistency and a good GM like TT restocking the cupboards when guys like Driver start to drop off.

[Freak Out]

Can you imagine Rodgers with a good running game?

[gbgary]

Can you imagine Rodgers with a good running game?

his passing stats would go down.

[HarveyWallbangers]

his passing stats would go down.

His passing yards would go down. The rest? Maybe. Maybe not. His completion %, yards per attempt, TD to interception rate, and passer rating might actually improve.

[Smeefers]

People talk about Rodgers as being one of the best QB's in the League. Favre was the best QB in the league for 3 straight years. I don't even think that matters because it shouldn't be a comparison between Favre and Rodgers, because Favre is #2 on the list, it should be between Rodgers and Starr. Even I concede that if Rodgers retired today and never took another NFL snap that he was more complete than Favre, there's no way that he beats Starr. Even if Rodgers has a better arm than Starr, Starr makes up for it in intelligence, guts and great games. So far Aaron Rodgers only has one signature game, the falcons game this year in the playoffs. Starr has the Ice bowl. Rodgers is not a legend. Sure, he's great, but he's not one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game.

The problem I'm having is I believe people are hedging their bets on what he could do instead of what he has done. He's shown flashes of greatness. He could be one of the best. If he continues on this road, you will be able to talk about him as one of the best, but he's just not there yet. He can be so much more dangerous and so much better than he is now. I think calling him *the* most complete QB in Packers history is pre-mature. A year from now, maybe two, I may agree with you. I say wait and see. If the NFL ended tomorrow, both Starr and Favre would have to rank in front of Rodgers IMO and even if I gave you Favre, Starr is still hand over fist more complete than Rodgers is.

[denverYooper]

People talk about Rodgers as being one of the best QB's in the League. Favre was the best QB in the league for 3 straight years. I don't even think that matters because it shouldn't be a comparison between Favre and Rodgers, because Favre is #2 on the list, it should be between Rodgers and Starr. Even I concede that if Rodgers retired today and never took another NFL snap that he was more complete than Favre, there's no way that he beats Starr. Even if Rodgers has a better arm than Starr, Starr makes up for it in intelligence, guts and great games. So far Aaron Rodgers only has one signature game, the falcons game this year in the playoffs. Starr has the Ice bowl. Rodgers is not a legend. Sure, he's great, but he's not one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game.

The problem I'm having is I believe people are hedging their bets on what he could do instead of what he has done. He's shown flashes of greatness. He could be one of the best. If he continues on this road, you will be able to talk about him as one of the best, but he's just not there yet. He can be so much more dangerous and so much better than he is now. I think calling him *the* most complete QB in Packers history is pre-mature. A year from now, maybe two, I may agree with you. I say wait and see. If the NFL ended tomorrow, both Starr and Favre would have to rank in front of Rodgers IMO and even if I gave you Favre, Starr is still hand over fist more complete than Rodgers is.

I'd say SBXLV was another signature game for Rodgers.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodgers right now is as good as Favre was at his best. Better? Probably not, but as good. Obviously, Favre has had a better career because of longevity. However, unlike Favre I think Rodgers will sustain his elite caliber play beyond 3-4 years. After 1998 Favre was a consistently good QB, but only had a couple of years where he was truly great. Mainly because he regressed after Holmgren left and the bonehead mistakes came back into his play. The bonehead mistakes have never really been a part of Rodgers game, so I think it's likely that Rodgers will maintain elite play for longer than Favre did--provided he stays healthy. The huge knock on Favre was his less than stellar play in the playoffs for the second half of his career.

I don't feel qualified to judge Starr because I didn't see him play. It's impossible to compare Rodgers and Favre to Starr. Starr had the HUGE advantage of playing long before the free agency period. Teams like Green Bay, then Pittsburgh, and then San Francisco could keep Hall of Fame talent on their team for the entirety of their careers. It was much easier for him to be the QB of a dynasty--because dynasties were MUCH more likely to happen.

[Patler]

People talk about Rodgers as being one of the best QB's in the League. Favre was the best QB in the league for 3 straight years. I don't even think that matters because it shouldn't be a comparison between Favre and Rodgers, because Favre is #2 on the list, it should be between Rodgers and Starr. Even I concede that if Rodgers retired today and never took another NFL snap that he was more complete than Favre, there's no way that he beats Starr. Even if Rodgers has a better arm than Starr, Starr makes up for it in intelligence, guts and great games. So far Aaron Rodgers only has one signature game, the falcons game this year in the playoffs. Starr has the Ice bowl. Rodgers is not a legend. Sure, he's great, but he's not one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game.

The problem I'm having is I believe people are hedging their bets on what he could do instead of what he has done. He's shown flashes of greatness. He could be one of the best. If he continues on this road, you will be able to talk about him as one of the best, but he's just not there yet. He can be so much more dangerous and so much better than he is now. I think calling him *the* most complete QB in Packers history is pre-mature. A year from now, maybe two, I may agree with you. I say wait and see. If the NFL ended tomorrow, both Starr and Favre would have to rank in front of Rodgers IMO and even if I gave you Favre, Starr is still hand over fist more complete than Rodgers is.

You keep bouncing back and forth between looking at the careers of players and isolated segments of their careers. I'm not sure how to respond. You emphasize the three years of Favre's career but then dismiss discussions of Rodgers because its only three years.

The idea of the thread was not to debate career accomplishments, but the total package of abilities presented by the players. What talents do they offer? I have argued forever, including while Favre was in GB, that Starr was the best ever, and still argue that. I took a lot of flak for it 5 years ago, not so much now.

But, Starr had deficiencies. He didn't have the strongest arm in the world, and he didn't offer much of a running option. In the end, those didn't matter much and his career performance speaks for itself.

Right now, Rodgers doesn't show many deficiencies. His career performance has just started. I would argue he is a more complete QB than Starr was, but without a doubt Starr was more accomplished.

In my definitions "complete" is not the same as "best".

[gbgary]

His passing yards would go down. The rest? Maybe. Maybe not. His completion %, yards per attempt, TD to interception rate, and passer rating might actually improve.

i think all his stats would go down except completetion percentage and qb rating. the effect on the team though, in having a good running game, would be fantastic. more wins and by a larger amount of points.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I too believe that Rodgers is the perfect hybrid between Starr and Favre and may someday surpass them both and have his number on the famed Ring of Honor as well. He's also been blessed with an outstanding GM who can bring in great talent and complementary players. No QB can put up impressive seasons without a good surrounding cast. To argue who has more talent is meaningless as the talent levels from now and 14 yrs ago is so different. At the time, Favre's talent was very, very good and as Patler pointed out earlier, it was more heavily skewed towards the RB and TEs. Rodgers has better WRs. It's totally reflective of the different coaching styles of Holmgren and MM.