What the Packers WILL (not should) do with Favre

[Patler]

Just a quick poll now that he is in town. What do you think the final outcome WILL be, not what you think it should be. I don't want another argument thread, just a sampling of what fans think WILL (not should) happen.

(This is my first ever poll, so I hope I did it right.)

[BallHawk]

Trade by the end of the week.

[gex]

Open competition, Favre wins hands down.

[digitaldean]

Who the hell knows considering how much of roller coaster ride this has been?

My gut tells me he'll eventually start. Now that he is here, I really don't see them trading him unless they got a gigantic amount of picks for him from an AFC team.

[Partial]

Trade by the end of the week.

did you listen to the interviews tonight? Murphy and TT didn't lead me at all to believe this will be the case.

I can't help but wonder what went on in that meeting with Murphy. I think a lot of it comes down to Brett taking the agreement, knowing his revenue money will easily eclipse 20 mil over 10 years.

Maybe he said he wouldn't accept it unless he was playing for the Pack, so they decided to let him? I don't know, but I feel like there is more to that meeting then meets the eye.

[The Leaper]

It appears Green Bay feels like they can't get an appropriate level of compensation for him in a trade, so they are planning on retaining him. If they truly make this a competition, I'd have to give Favre an edge...even rusty.

[pbmax]

I think he wins even a modestly open QB competition, given that Rodgers hasn't started a game and in unused to this pressure. Second most likely is trade, esp if there is a QB injury.

I really doubt he backs up and can almost rule out release.

[Partial]

Trade by the end of the week.

did you listen to the interviews tonight? Murphy and TT didn't lead me at all to believe this will be the case.

I can't help but wonder what went on in that meeting with Murphy. I think a lot of it comes down to Brett taking the agreement, knowing his revenue money will easily eclipse 20 mil over 10 years.

Maybe he said he wouldn't accept it unless he was playing for the Pack, so they decided to let him? I don't know, but I feel like there is more to that meeting then meets the eye.

This article leads me to the thoughts described in the above passage.

"Green Bay - The Green Bay Packers are through negotiating with quarterback Brett Favre on a marketing deal and they are anticipating him reporting for training camp Monday and being on the field as soon as he passes his physical, a Packers source said.

Another source close to the club, said that the Packers have agreed to allow Favre to compete with Aaron Rodgers for the starting job and he won't necessarily be the backup this season. Trade talks with Favre have not advanced and coach Mike McCarthy is expected to come up with a plan that will split the practice repetitions with Rodgers.

The Packers released this statement from president Mark Murphy:

"Sixteen years after Brett Favre came to the Packers, he is returning for a seventeenth season. He has had a great career with our organization and although we built this year around the assumption that Brett meant what he said about retiring, Brett is coming back. We will welcome him back and turn this situation to our advantage."

Read more about Favre's return in our Packers blog."

emphasis on the word agreed.

[oregonpackfan]

With all that has taken place in the past weeks, I truly don't know what the hell the Packers are going to do with Favre! :?:

[Zool]

Option E: Take the stupid old yeller dog out behind the woodshed.

I'll do it maw, he's my dawg.

[hoosier]

Trade him for a ham sandwich.

[]{ilr]3]

Since he is here and the cluster-fxxx is already started the Packers need to move forward that he is now the starting QB and prepare for the season. They should not (and I am pretty sure that this is what they are doing) use the situation to try and make other teams think that the Packers intend to keep him on the roster to try and gain trade value.

[The Leaper]

{ilr]3]They should not (and I am pretty sure that this is what they are doing) use the situation to try and make other teams think that the Packers intend to keep him on the roster to try and gain trade value.

I agree. Taking time away from Rodgers just to showcase Favre for a trade would be pretty dumb IMO.

[Pacopete4]

I agree.. get him ready to play football because really, thats what the Packers are going to do in the end, play football...

[swede]

Start him.

At this point we just start with a new retrofuture and next year we can get back to drafting qb's to replace the disgruntled what's his name at number two on the depth chart. Aaron Roberts or something, wasn't it?

[SnakeLH2006]

Start him.

At this point we just start with a new retrofuture and next year we can get back to drafting qb's to replace the disgruntled what's his name at number two on the depth chart. Aaron Roberts or something, wasn't it?

Who?? :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Trade by the end of the week.

to who, MN? That's the only team Favre will accept.

[Fritz]

Sigh. He's going to end up starting.

And for the first time in my life, I think that's a bad thing.

[cpk1994]

{ilr]3]Since he is here and the cluster-fxxx is already started the Packers need to move forward that he is now the starting QB and prepare for the season. They should not (and I am pretty sure that this is what they are doing) use the situation to try and make other teams think that the Packers intend to keep him on the roster to try and gain trade value.Aaron is still the starter. Nothing on that front has changed.

[]{ilr]3]

{ilr]3]Since he is here and the cluster-fxxx is already started the Packers need to move forward that he is now the starting QB and prepare for the season. They should not (and I am pretty sure that this is what they are doing) use the situation to try and make other teams think that the Packers intend to keep him on the roster to try and gain trade value.Aaron is still the starter. Nothing on that front has changed.

Yes, I know. What I am saying is that now he is here, they should suck it up and move forward with Favre. No more trade talk and no competition talk. This shit needs to end now. This team needs to be prepared for a tough season. They need all the prep they can get.

[Patler]

If some are going to revive old Favre threads to toot their own horns, you might as well look at what the voting sentiment REALLY was back in 2008. An overwhelming majority of those who voted thought he would be made the starter.

[LEWCWA]

and the 4 that voted play him as backup just wanted to be different or were dillusional!

[pbmax]

According to the poll, Nutz has voted recently, but no one else since Aug 2008.

What is clear now, that was not clear then (or at least very hard to believe) was that Thompson and McCarthy both thought Rodgers would be better than Favre in short order. In 2008? Possibly not. But fast enough to save their jobs.

[Deputy Nutz]

I had to vote to see the poll :)

[channtheman]

Is there a way to see how you voted? It says I voted but I don't remember what I picked.

[Fritz]

Sigh. He's going to end up starting.

And for the first time in my life, I think that's a bad thing.

Wow. I was wrong. And how damn glad am I to be wrong!

[australianpackerbacker]

If some are going to revive old Favre threads to toot their own horns, you might as well look at what the voting sentiment REALLY was back in 2008. An overwhelming majority of those who voted thought he would be made the starter.

Quite obvious that growing pains would occur.

I think a better way to say this is;

If you could pick both players in the 5th year of their careers as to who would start. who would you pick? Tough one but id go with less interceptions and ego.

[Noodle]

I hate to feed you APB, but I have to call BS on your "who would you pick at year five" post.

At the five-year point, including his non-year in Atlanta, Favre was a first-team all pro and won his first league MVP (as you know, 2 more MVPs would follow).

At year five for Rodgers, he was named to a pro bowl, but no one said he was MVP caliber.

I love me some A-Rod, but it's easy to let Favre's final years cloud the memory of what he did in his prime.

[pbmax]

And the ego call is tougher than it looks now. Easy to call Favre on it now, but back then he just seemed cocky like Rodgers. Aaron has an edge about him and I doubt he takes a backseat to Brett on ego.

[Gunakor]

I hate to feed you APB, but I have to call BS on your "who would you pick at year five" post.

At the five-year point, including his non-year in Atlanta, Favre was a first-team all pro and won his first league MVP (as you know, 2 more MVPs would follow).

At year five for Rodgers, he was named to a pro bowl, but no one said he was MVP caliber.

I love me some A-Rod, but it's easy to let Favre's final years cloud the memory of what he did in his prime.


MVP caliber QB in 1996 isn't even a lock to make the Pro Bowl in 2011. So I don't think that's a very good measuring stick when comparing Favre and Rodgers in year 5. Rodgers year 5, his second year starting, would have given Favre a run for his money in 1996.

1996 Favre: 325/543 (59.9%) 3899 yards, 39 TD's, 13 INT's, 95.8 rating
2009 Rodgers: 350/541 (64.7%) 4434 yards, 30 TD's, 7 INT's, 103.2 rating

And you're right, in 2009 Rodgers wasn't even part of the MVP discussion. Coincidentally, Rodgers' 5th year starting was also Favre's best season as an NFL quarterback at 4200 yds/33 TD's /7 INT's. And Favre didn't win MVP in 2009 either. So I guess I don't place as much stock in Favre's 1996 "MVP caliber" season as I did back in the 90's. I find it a very poor measuring stick when used as a comparison to today's crop of QB's. Rodgers 2009 season was every bit as good as Favre's 1996 season, MVP awards be damned.

I'd take Rodgers too.

[Upnorth]

MVP caliber QB in 1996 isn't even a lock to make the Pro Bowl in 2011. So I don't think that's a very good measuring stick when comparing Favre and Rodgers in year 5. Rodgers year 5, his second year starting, would have given Favre a run for his money in 1996.

1996 Favre: 325/543 (59.9%) 3899 yards, 39 TD's, 13 INT's, 95.8 rating
2009 Rodgers: 350/541 (64.7%) 4434 yards, 30 TD's, 7 INT's, 103.2 rating

And you're right, in 2009 Rodgers wasn't even part of the MVP discussion. Coincidentally, Rodgers' 5th year starting was also Favre's best season as an NFL quarterback at 4200 yds/33 TD's /7 INT's. And Favre didn't win MVP in 2009 either. So I guess I don't place as much stock in Favre's 1996 "MVP caliber" season as I did back in the 90's. I find it a very poor measuring stick when used as a comparison to today's crop of QB's. Rodgers 2009 season was every bit as good as Favre's 1996 season, MVP awards be damned.

I'd take Rodgers too.

If you compare 1996 to 2009 of course you will favor todays qb. However the game has evolved in style and more importantly rules. I would say that Favre was the best (or second best if Young had a full year) QB in 1996. Rodgers was lumped in with Brady, Brees, Rivers, Favre and Manning. Putting blinders on to the rest of Favre's career I think it would be a very tough decision if you had to pick one.
Compare 2010 Rodgers to 1996 Favre and I would lean to the upside on Rodgers more (regular season only). If you picked their first MVP seasons it would be a no brainer to Rodgers as there is no competition for Rodgers, but there was for Favre.

[Gunakor]

If you compare 1996 to 2009 of course you will favor todays qb. However the game has evolved in style and more importantly rules. I would say that Favre was the best (or second best if Young had a full year) QB in 1996. Rodgers was lumped in with Brady, Brees, Rivers, Favre and Manning. Putting blinders on to the rest of Favre's career I think it would be a very tough decision if you had to pick one.
Compare 2010 Rodgers to 1996 Favre and I would lean to the upside on Rodgers more (regular season only). If you picked their first MVP seasons it would be a no brainer to Rodgers as there is no competition for Rodgers, but there was for Favre.

You missed the point. Rodgers doesn't have an MVP so we can't compare MVP's. That's not what it's about. My post addresses Noodle's use of Favre's 1996 MVP award as evidence that his MVP season was superior to Rodgers' 2009 season (which did not even earn MVP consideration). I disagreed, laid out the actual numbers, and opined that I'd rather take Rodgers in year 5 as opposed to Favre in year 5. I absolutely agree with your post, but that's not what my response to Noodle was about.

[Upnorth]

You missed the point. Rodgers doesn't have an MVP so we can't compare MVP's. That's not what it's about. My post addresses Noodle's use of Favre's 1996 MVP award as evidence that his MVP season was superior to Rodgers' 2009 season (which did not even earn MVP consideration). I disagreed, laid out the actual numbers, and opined that I'd rather take Rodgers in year 5 as opposed to Favre in year 5. I absolutely agree with your post, but that's not what my response to Noodle was about.

I am glad we agree, but lets keep fighting in stead. I have a 1/2 hour till my next appointment and since I hired a new assistant 2 months ago, I have much less work to do.
So I guess my point was that comparing 96 qbs to 09 qbs is apples and oranges. If you could normalize it to apples to apples I think it would be a very very hard decision to make (assuming you knew as much about Favre's future as Rodgers). That was the start of my point, then I started rambling until the MVP point.
I am projecting that Arod gets the MVP this year, and will not turn into an average qb for the remainder of the year. This is a season for the ages, and Favre never had one of those. He was an amazing QB, but if you were forced to pick a qb without knowing their future at the half way point only Mannings 2004, Marino's 84 and Brady's 2007 compare.

[Gunakor]

So I guess my point was that comparing 96 qbs to 09 qbs is apples and oranges. If you could normalize it to apples to apples I think it would be a very very hard decision to make (assuming you knew as much about Favre's future as Rodgers).

Put Rodgers and Favre's 5th seasons in a vacuum. There is no competition for them, no refs to call penalties, no Associated Press to give out any awards. No WR's to drop any passes and no DB's to intercept them. Their previous season doesn't factor in, and neither does their following seasons. They are being judged on their 5th year NFL performances based solely on things like accuracy, arm strength, mobility, decision making... things that are not dependent on an NFL rules committee, are not subject to officiating, and are unrelated to the talent level of the competition at the time. Just one QB against another. Who is smarter? Who is more accurate? Who is more mobile?

Who is the better quarterback?

[Pugger]

Favre started for 4 seasons before his first MVP and SB. Rodgers started for only 3 years before his SB MVP - an award that elluded BF - and if he wins the league MVP this year it will be in his 4th year starting too. Rodgers' QB rating, mobility and low INTs make him in my eyes the better QB. Will ARod get multiple rings and MVPs? If he does then there is no comparision, is there?

[Deputy Nutz]

Put Rodgers and Favre's 5th seasons in a vacuum. There is no competition for them, no refs to call penalties, no Associated Press to give out any awards. No WR's to drop any passes and no DB's to intercept them. Their previous season doesn't factor in, and neither does their following seasons. They are being judged on their 5th year NFL performances based solely on things like accuracy, arm strength, mobility, decision making... things that are not dependent on an NFL rules committee, are not subject to officiating, and are unrelated to the talent level of the competition at the time. Just one QB against another. Who is smarter? Who is more accurate? Who is more mobile?

Who is the better quarterback?

Impossible.
How the game is called is a direct impact to stats.

[Deputy Nutz]

Impossible.
How the game is called is a direct impact to stats.

Impossible again because you don't factor injuries, and you don't factor in the players catching the football. If you want to slant your views and your stats to pick Rodgers in year 5 go a head but it doesn't make any sense.

[Deputy Nutz]

Favre started for 4 seasons before his first MVP and SB. Rodgers started for only 3 years before his SB MVP - an award that elluded BF - and if he wins the league MVP this year it will be in his 4th year starting too. Rodgers' QB rating, mobility and low INTs make him in my eyes the better QB. Will ARod get multiple rings and MVPs? If he does then there is no comparision, is there?

See everyone compared Brett to Bart, and now the comparison will burn between Brett and Rodgers. All three actually played in their prime during a different era of the NFL. Be fortunate to have all three. What other franchise can put together a list of starting QBs like the Packers? Starr, Favre, Rodgers. I did some quick history in my head and I can't think of a franchise that boast three QBs as talented and dominant as these three.

[Upnorth]

Put Rodgers and Favre's 5th seasons in a vacuum. There is no competition for them, no refs to call penalties, no Associated Press to give out any awards. No WR's to drop any passes and no DB's to intercept them. Their previous season doesn't factor in, and neither does their following seasons. They are being judged on their 5th year NFL performances based solely on things like accuracy, arm strength, mobility, decision making... things that are not dependent on an NFL rules committee, are not subject to officiating, and are unrelated to the talent level of the competition at the time. Just one QB against another. Who is smarter? Who is more accurate? Who is more mobile?

Who is the better quarterback?
I feel rule changes and game planning have evolved to a new style of QB. Favre's best year was 2009 statistically. Knowing what I know of Favre's chance taking i would pck Rodgers, but without teh value of hindsight I don't know. Alot of people though Vick would be the man this year based of of last year.

[hoosier]

And the ego call is tougher than it looks now. Easy to call Favre on it now, but back then he just seemed cocky like Rodgers. Aaron has an edge about him and I doubt he takes a backseat to Brett on ego.

Maybe not a backseat if you mean just strong ego, but ARod is unquestionably better at self-control. In all respects. Filtering stream of thoughts, moderating his appetites, thinking before hitting send on the cellphone.

[Smidgeon]

See everyone compared Brett to Bart, and now the comparison will burn between Brett and Rodgers. All three actually played in their prime during a different era of the NFL. Be fortunate to have all three. What other franchise can put together a list of starting QBs like the Packers? Starr, Favre, Rodgers. I did some quick history in my head and I can't think of a franchise that boast three QBs as talented and dominant as these three.

I think there was a thread about that a couple months ago...

[Patler]

See everyone compared Brett to Bart, and now the comparison will burn between Brett and Rodgers. All three actually played in their prime during a different era of the NFL. Be fortunate to have all three. What other franchise can put together a list of starting QBs like the Packers? Starr, Favre, Rodgers. I did some quick history in my head and I can't think of a franchise that boast three QBs as talented and dominant as these three.

SF has had a pretty good run of QBS:

Y.A. Tittle for 8 years, followed by
John Brodie for 14 years.
A few years with Plunkett and DeBerg, then
Montana for about 12 years followed by
Young for 8 years, and
Garcia for 5 years.

Three Hall of Fame QBs in Tittle, Montana and Young.
Brodie was always one of the leading passers, was MVP once and played a long time.
Garcia went to three Pro Bowls while a 49er.

[mraynrand]

Bring me the head of Jeff Garcia

[pbmax]

Favre did have the benefit of years between him and Starr. That, plus the fact that it took until the second half of 1994 for him to remove his head from his hindquarters. Comparisons to Bart probably did not start in earnest until MVP and Super Bowl wins.

Rodgers got the comparison's from day one as a starter and like Montana/Young, it makes it tougher on both individuals.

[Deputy Nutz]

SF has had a pretty good run of QBS:

Y.A. Tittle for 8 years, followed by
John Brodie for 14 years.
A few years with Plunkett and DeBerg, then
Montana for about 12 years followed by
Young for 8 years, and
Garcia for 5 years.


Three Hall of Fame QBs in Tittle, Montana and Young.
Brodie was always one of the leading passers, was MVP once and played a long time.
Garcia went to three Pro Bowls while a 49er.

Close but I believe Montana and Young were the only ones to win championships. I am to young to remember Tittle. To be honest I don't know who the fuck Brodie is. Garcia is not in the same league as any of the Packer QBs that I mentioned. 49ers are close though. Young was damn good but was quickly taken over by Favre as best QB in the 90s, Bart Starr has more NFL Championships than anyone and best QB in the 60s, and Rodgers is on a whole new level now.

[hoosier]

It just now dawned on me that the post-2008 re-christenings of Favre are actually part of a sequence that has a nice ring to it: Bart, Brett, Bert.

[mraynrand]

Close but I believe Montana and Young were the only ones to win championships. I am to young to remember Tittle. To be honest I don't know who the fuck Brodie is. Garcia is not in the same league as any of the Packer QBs that I mentioned. 49ers are close though. Young was damn good but was quickly taken over by Favre as best QB in the 90s, Bart Starr has more NFL Championships than anyone and best QB in the 60s, and Rodgers is on a whole new level now.

Y.A. was a tease. He only tittillated the fans with championship dreams

[mraynrand]

It just now dawned on me that the post-2008 re-christenings of Favre are actually part of a sequence that has a nice ring to it: Bart, Brett, Bert.

What about Brent?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2657/4047848749_fb5caff569.jpg

[Noodle]

Gunny, you rat bastard, you should know that you cannot, with a straight face, judge a qb in 1996 with a qb in 2011 on a stats-only basis. You know the way the game is called and played has changed radically since then. I noted the MVP because it's a pretty good barometer of how folks viewed Favre (or Rodgers) compared to every other player in the league for that particular season.

To say you would pick a guy who only got a pro bowl nod (not all-pro, mind you, pro bowl, which you can get with a box of wheaties) over the friggin league MVP (and also offensive player of the year) strikes me as a little absurd.

Don't read more into what I'm saying than what I'm saying, which is simply that at the year five point, Favre had accomplished more and was considered a more elite qb in comparison to his peers than was A-Rod at the five-year point.

But at this point, I would agree that A-Rod is having a lights-out season (for which he will be recognized with a league MVP and very likely offensive player of the year).

[mraynrand]

what I'm saying, which is simply that at the year five point, Favre had accomplished more and was considered a more elite qb in comparison to his peers than was A-Rod at the five-year point.

who could argue with this?

[gbgary]

Bring me the head of Jeff Garcia

http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/object/920/920432/fredo-corleone_pictureboxart_160w.jpg

[Patler]

Close but I believe Montana and Young were the only ones to win championships. I am to young to remember Tittle. To be honest I don't know who the fuck Brodie is. Garcia is not in the same league as any of the Packer QBs that I mentioned. 49ers are close though. Young was damn good but was quickly taken over by Favre as best QB in the 90s, Bart Starr has more NFL Championships than anyone and best QB in the 60s, and Rodgers is on a whole new level now.

Three Hall of Fame QBs are pretty darn good, championships or not. It takes a lot more than just a QB to win a championship.

A few years ago there was an active campaign to get John Brodie considered for the HOF. When he retired, he was #3 all time in passing yards. I remember him as a thorn in the side of the Packers throughout the '60s. He seemed to always play well against GB. He never had the notoriety of Starr and Unitas, but wasn't far behind them in talent. Didn't have quite as much talent around him as they did. Brodie was good enough that after having Brodie behind Tittle for a few years, the 49ers were willing to trade an aging future HOFer (Tittle) and turn the job over to Brodie. It wasn't much different than the Favre/Rodgers situation. Tittle went on to have a few outstanding years with the Giants, then played one year too long and was quite bad his last season.

I think Tittle, Montana and Young match up pretty well against Starr, Favre and Rodgers. Brodie really wasn't far behind either.

I mentioned the others only to show that the 49ers have been fortunate to have very capable QBs for a long time.

[channtheman]

I think I'll go ahead and say that Rodgers is already better than Favre and is now only looking up at Starr as the best all time on the Packers QB list. If Rodgers wins 2-3 more Super Bowls, you can put him ahead of Starr as well.

[mraynrand]

If Rodgers wins 2-3 more Super Bowls, you can put him ahead of Starr as well.

really going out on a limb there, aren't cha

[Noodle]

Patler forgot to mention the best thing about Brodie -- he kept Steve Spurrier on the friggin bench for years.

But yeah, prior to Favre-to-A-Rod, SF set the gold standard for transitioning from one elite qb to another.

[Scott Campbell]

Patler forgot to mention the best thing about Brodie -- he kept Steve Spurrier on the friggin bench for years.

Isn't Chris Chandler his son in law?

[Fosco33]

Jesus... wow.

I love Rodgers - I ate crow very quickly because I questioned his possible durability with 2 season ending injuries in mopup/backup duty for Favre but saw lots of potential in his first year.

But man, was anyone else fucking annoyed that Gruden/Rodgers sounds surprisingly similar to Madden/Favre. It got old on MNF.

I hope ARod wins 5 championships over a long, productive career and is widely regarded as one of the best ever - in GB and overall. But it's very, very early. He's had a great start and won a SB. But injuries, luck, contracts, etc and 51 other guys have a lot to contribute to a team game over a decade.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Let's learn from the past and not anoint another Packer god unless we're prepared to create a possibly huge ego and another painful exit/transition.

[Scott Campbell]

Jesus... wow.

I love Rodgers - I ate crow very quickly because I questioned his possible durability with 2 season ending injuries in mopup/backup duty for Favre but saw lots of potential in his first year.

But man, was anyone else fucking annoyed that Gruden/Rodgers sounds surprisingly similar to Madden/Favre. It got old on MNF.

I hope ARod wins 5 championships over a long, productive career and is widely regarded as one of the best ever - in GB and overall. But it's very, very early. He's had a great start and won a SB. But injuries, luck, contracts, etc and 51 other guys have a lot to contribute to a team game over a decade.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Let's learn from the past and not anoint another Packer god unless we're prepared to create a possibly huge ego and another painful exit/transition.


Gruden is always putting somebody up on that pedestal. Better Rodgers than Finley.

[MJZiggy]

Gruden is always putting somebody up on that pedestal. Better Rodgers than Finley.

better Rodgers than the opposing QB.

[mission]

better Rodgers than the opposing QB.

Yeah, I can't stand Gruden as much as the next guy, but I do actually enjoy it when the Packers are on and he can't stop talking about Rodgers. :D

[Scott Campbell]

Yeah, I can't stand Gruden as much as the next guy, but I do actually enjoy it when the Packers are on and he can't stop talking about Rodgers. :D


I find it nauseating, but it would be more nauseating if he worshiped somebody I hated.

[gbgary]

Gruden is always putting somebody up on that pedestal. Better Rodgers than Finley.

it's very annoying. every game there's someone who's the end-all.

[hoosier]

What about Brent?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2657/4047848749_fb5caff569.jpg

Bart, Brett, Brent, Bert. That sounds vaguely like "Bart Brett, get bent." Not so nice.

[channtheman]

really going out on a limb there, aren't cha

If I had said, "when Rodgers wins 2-3 more" you would have a point. However, I said "if Rodgers wins 2-3 more."

[Gunakor]

Impossible.
How the game is called is a direct impact to stats.

Favre deliberately threw into coverage and relied on his receivers to make the play - Donald Driver has recently gone on record as saying as much. Rodgers has never - and I mean NEVER - deliberately thrown into coverage expecting his receivers to be the ones to make the play. Rodgers makes the play himself by throwing to the guy that isn't covered, or throwing his receivers open. Rodgers is WAY smarter, makes WAY better decisions with the ball, and puts his teams in a MUCH better position to win ballgames. That alone puts Rodgers 3 notches above Favre at ANY point in Favre's career. That has nothing to do with the way the game is called, and has an even more direct impact to stats than any sideline playcaller.

[Gunakor]

Impossible again because you don't factor injuries, and you don't factor in the players catching the football. If you want to slant your views and your stats to pick Rodgers in year 5 go a head but it doesn't make any sense.

Actually, some of the WR injuries can be directly attributed to Favre's carelessness with the football.

[Gunakor]

Gunny, you rat bastard, you should know that you cannot, with a straight face, judge a qb in 1996 with a qb in 2011 on a stats-only basis. You know the way the game is called and played has changed radically since then. I noted the MVP because it's a pretty good barometer of how folks viewed Favre (or Rodgers) compared to every other player in the league for that particular season.

To say you would pick a guy who only got a pro bowl nod (not all-pro, mind you, pro bowl, which you can get with a box of wheaties) over the friggin league MVP (and also offensive player of the year) strikes me as a little absurd.

Don't read more into what I'm saying than what I'm saying, which is simply that at the year five point, Favre had accomplished more and was considered a more elite qb in comparison to his peers than was A-Rod at the five-year point.

But at this point, I would agree that A-Rod is having a lights-out season (for which he will be recognized with a league MVP and very likely offensive player of the year).


The one stat that stood out - and I made sure to note it - was completion percentage. Favre in his MVP 1996 season completed less than 60% of his passes. Rodgers in his 2009 season completed nearly 65% of his passes. Sure, okay, Rodgers has better receivers. But his receivers aren't making spectacular catches on poorly thrown passes, or passes thrown into triple coverage. They are making EASY catches. Having a much better quarterback certainly helps those receivers do their jobs so well. All of Rodgers other stats stem from his completion percentage - yards, passer rating, INT's - and his completion percentage is higher because he makes better decisions and throws a better ball. Rodgers in 2009 is better than Favre in 1996 because he made better decisions and threw a better ball. His stats are simply a reflection of that. And I can absolutely make that comparison with a straight face.

[Upnorth]

Bart, Brett, Brent, Bert. That sounds vaguely like "Bart Brett, get bent." Not so nice.

It kinda went 'Brett, got bent' in real life when 2009 rolled around.

[Upnorth]

The one stat that stood out - and I made sure to note it - was completion percentage. Favre in his MVP 1996 season completed less than 60% of his passes. Rodgers in his 2009 season completed nearly 65% of his passes. Sure, okay, Rodgers has better receivers. But his receivers aren't making spectacular catches on poorly thrown passes, or passes thrown into triple coverage. They are making EASY catches. Having a much better quarterback certainly helps those receivers do their jobs so well. All of Rodgers other stats stem from his completion percentage - yards, passer rating, INT's - and his completion percentage is higher because he makes better decisions and throws a better ball. Rodgers in 2009 is better than Favre in 1996 because he made better decisions and threw a better ball. His stats are simply a reflection of that. And I can absolutely make that comparison with a straight face.

From what I have read the only stats that are really apples to apples across era's are YPA. Completion % depends on rules and schemes too much. If you went with completion % to prove good or bad qbs most old school hall of famers would look like a boat load of crap compared to chad pennington.
Also the 'throwing open' comments mean throwing into a tight window with good coverage in place. Rodgers threw Finley open in triple coverage against the vikings.

[Deputy Nutz]

Favre deliberately threw into coverage and relied on his receivers to make the play - Donald Driver has recently gone on record as saying as much. Rodgers has never - and I mean NEVER - deliberately thrown into coverage expecting his receivers to be the ones to make the play. Rodgers makes the play himself by throwing to the guy that isn't covered, or throwing his receivers open. Rodgers is WAY smarter, makes WAY better decisions with the ball, and puts his teams in a MUCH better position to win ballgames. That alone puts Rodgers 3 notches above Favre at ANY point in Favre's career. That has nothing to do with the way the game is called, and has an even more direct impact to stats than any sideline playcaller.

Favre threw into coverage because he had a cannon and could spit defenenders it was a physical tool that he relied on too much, but when it worked, and quite often it did, it was a thing of beauty. Detroit, playoffs 1993 his first TD to Sterling was one of the best throws I have ever seen a QB make.

Don't give me shit about Rodgers being fucking perfect. Just last Monday night, he threw to Driver when Driver was blanketed, Driver made a great catch twisting his body back around to make the catch. Great Receivers make great catches regardless who is throwing the ball. How about that throw down the middle of the field to Finley for a first down when Finley had two defenders on him? Rodgers is playing great football with a tremendously talented group of receivers. It is pretty magical watching that offense work. Rodgers is accurate probably a bit more accurate than Favre just from watching the two Qbs over the last 20 years. Very rarely does Rodgers let a pass get away from him. His deep ball is very good, better than Favre's.

Favre relied on his arm not his receivers. Sure when he had Sterling he relied on him because he was the best receiver in the game and Favre was awfully young. I guarantee you Favre would have gone fucking bonkers relying on Bill Shroeder to beat defenders while in coverage, that shit never happened. Favre had one game in his career where his receivers took over the game and that was in Oakland the day after his father passed away. I think Favre made one incredible throw to Wesley Walls, but then his wideouts just flat out beat the Oakland defenders for every jump ball.

Again, you want to state your opinion on who is the better QB, fine but it is opinion, one I don't agree with because you choose to live in a bubble where all you have are your stats which don't cross over a whole lot when the rules of the game change, and inforcement of rules change, scheme changes, and play calling changes, but live in your bubble and you will be protected by your own ignorance.

[Deputy Nutz]

The one stat that stood out - and I made sure to note it - was completion percentage. Favre in his MVP 1996 season completed less than 60% of his passes. Rodgers in his 2009 season completed nearly 65% of his passes. Sure, okay, Rodgers has better receivers. But his receivers aren't making spectacular catches on poorly thrown passes, or passes thrown into triple coverage. They are making EASY catches. Having a much better quarterback certainly helps those receivers do their jobs so well. All of Rodgers other stats stem from his completion percentage - yards, passer rating, INT's - and his completion percentage is higher because he makes better decisions and throws a better ball. Rodgers in 2009 is better than Favre in 1996 because he made better decisions and threw a better ball. His stats are simply a reflection of that. And I can absolutely make that comparison with a straight face.

Did you see Drivers catch on Monday night? Did you see Finley's catch on Monday night? Not easy catches at all. All those back shoulder throws? Not at all easy to catch, and hard as heck to throw, but still don't make it seem these receivers have it easy, they make Rodgers look good and sure it goes both ways.

1996 Favre lost his two best receivers for extended period of time, for one game his starting wide outs were Don Beebe, and Desmond Howard. Two guys that made their names on special teams. He had good tight ends, and threw a lot to his backs but you are so careless in your ability to dismiss things for Favre but heap massive amounts of credit on Rodgers.

Favre's last season in Green Bay when he had Jennings in his second year, and Driver as wide outs he had one of his best statistical seasons, he made Donald Lee look like a All Pro. I could only imagine what Favre what kind of stats Favre would have put up with the use of Jermichael Finley. But now I sound like you, hypothesizing and living in the world of make believe.

[Fosco33]

Did you see Drivers catch on Monday night? Did you see Finley's catch on Monday night? Not easy catches at all. All those back shoulder throws? Not at all easy to catch, and hard as heck to throw, but still don't make it seem these receivers have it easy, they make Rodgers look good and sure it goes both ways.

1996 Favre lost his two best receivers for extended period of time, for one game his starting wide outs were Don Beebe, and Desmond Howard. Two guys that made their names on special teams. He had good tight ends, and threw a lot to his backs but you are so careless in your ability to dismiss things for Favre but heap massive amounts of credit on Rodgers.

Favre's last season in Green Bay when he had Jennings in his second year, and Driver as wide outs he had one of his best statistical seasons, he made Donald Lee look like a All Pro. I could only imagine what Favre what kind of stats Favre would have put up with the use of Jermichael Finley. But now I sound like you, hypothesizing and living in the world of make believe.

With Ed West, Keith Jackson and Chewy - he had some choice TEs in his day. Not saying those two equate to the quality now - but he did live in the WC offense.

I think part of the reason Favre was MVP those years - was because without him - the Packers were just an average team. They lived/died by his performance. Some days were amazing - some were not very good.

And you're right - we'll never be able to compare them justly. But Driver probably can...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/11/packers-wr-donald-driver-prefers-playing-with-aaron-rodgers-to-brett-favre/1

[Gunakor]

From what I have read the only stats that are really apples to apples across era's are YPA. Completion % depends on rules and schemes too much. If you went with completion % to prove good or bad qbs most old school hall of famers would look like a boat load of crap compared to chad pennington.
Also the 'throwing open' comments mean throwing into a tight window with good coverage in place. Rodgers threw Finley open in triple coverage against the vikings.


Completion percentage has as much to do with how well the pass is thrown as anything else. But if you want to use YPA, go ahead. Rodgers in 2009 beats Favre in 1996 there too (+300 yards on less attempts). And just about everywhere else, other than TD's.

Scheme, penalties, blah, blah. Seriously, do I really have to argue this? Look at them. Watch them play. Put them in a vacuum and tell me which is better. A quarterback's responsibilities are the same today as they were 15 years ago. Call the play, make sure everyone is lined up correctly, read the defense, call for the snap, drop back, read the defense, buy time if needed, find the open guy, put the ball where the most open guy has the best chance to make the biggest play on it. That's a QB's responsibility in a nutshell, same as it was then.

Sorry I used stats in my original post. I can see that's where the focus is, even though I used stats merely as a reflection of Rodgers superior talent. We can make this comparison without using stats at all. So let's do that. Who is the better quarterback.

You're right, the game has changed, but so has the level of talent at the QB position. Today's QB's are better than QB's of old. So, back to my original post, "Would you take Favre in year 5 or Rodgers in year 5" is a pretty simple question to answer. Favre was the more decorated quarterback, Favre was the best compared to his peers at the time, Favre won MVP; but Aaron Rodgers is the better, smarter, more athletic, more talented quarterback - who happens to play in a league with a bunch of other quarterbacks who are smarter, more athletic, and more talented than Favre was in 1996. The Favre of 1996 would be little more than a sideshow to Rodgers, Brees, Brady, etc. I'd take 2009 Rodgers without the accolades over 1996 Favre with them because 2009 Rodgers sans accolades gives me a better chance to win a football game. And really, that's all I was getting at.

[Gunakor]

Again, you want to state your opinion on who is the better QB, fine but it is opinion, one I don't agree with because you choose to live in a bubble where all you have are your stats which don't cross over a whole lot when the rules of the game change, and inforcement of rules change, scheme changes, and play calling changes, but live in your bubble and you will be protected by your own ignorance.


What Favre did was only special in relation to the time he played. His 1996 season was only special in 1996. It ain't shit today. But I digress. If you disagree with me that's cool too, but rather than simply trying to destroy my argument why don't you make one of your own. From being smarter to throwing a more catchable ball (according to receivers who have played with both, it's not just my personal evaluation) to being more athletic, I've clearly stated WHY it is I feel Rodgers to be the superior QB. Why do YOU think the 1996 Favre was better? Huh? ELIGHTEN ME SINCE I AM SIMPLY TRAPPED IN MY BUBBLE OF IGNORANCE!!

[Scott Campbell]

Rodgers is accurate probably a bit more accurate than Favre just from watching the two Qbs over the last 20 years. Very rarely does Rodgers let a pass get away from him. His deep ball is very good, better than Favre's.


Add in that Rodgers doesn't make the blatantly boneheaded inexplicable throws, and he doesn't need the first quarter just to settle down, and you've pretty much made the argument for Rodgers.

[Scott Campbell]

With Ed West, Keith Jackson and Chewy - he had some choice TEs in his day.


Rodgers won a Superbowl MVP throwing it to Quarless and Crabtree.

[Scott Campbell]

And don't get me wrong, Favre was a GREAT QB. But he's just not as good as Rodgers.

[Deputy Nutz]

Add in that Rodgers doesn't make the blatantly boneheaded inexplicable throws, and he doesn't need the first quarter just to settle down, and you've pretty much made the argument for Rodgers.

I did.

[Deputy Nutz]

Rodgers won a Superbowl MVP throwing it to Quarless and Crabtree.

Without a doubt, losing Finley was a huge blow to the offense's arsenal, but like the 96 team other guys stepped up their performances, Rodgers included.
I can't say anything wrong about Rodgers, he is playing close to perfect football. So don't mistake my views on Favre for my dislike for Rodgers. I think if Rodgers is lucky enough to keep his offensive coaching staff in place, McCarthy stays for Rodgers career, and his offensive firepower keeps reloading I think Rodger is going to have career season average stats that are going to blow any QBs out of the water. He won't play long enough to get any of the career stats, but every season statistic is well within his reach.

After the 1997 season it would have been hard to see any crack in Favre's game, but then Holmgren became disgruntled in Green Bay and left, the wrong coach was hired, musical chairs in the coaching staff happened, their weree misses in the draft, Favre's game slipped along with the talent around him. It is hard to argue that Favre was not the greatest talent at the QB position in the 90s and early 2000s, but he didn't have the pieces or the coaching staff around him. Favre became head strong for several years and didn't have anyone reign him in. McCarthey came to town and in two years Favre has one of his best statistical seasons of his career at 38 years old. Favregate, season with the Jets, and then another fantastic statistical season for the Vikings at 40 years old. It is an entire career that we have to judge Favre, Rodgers is off to a great start to his career, but he isn't even thirty years old and we claim he is already better than Favre. That is what the joke of this conversation is, Rodgers could go out on Sunday scramble get another concussion and blow out his knee and never bee the same. It is sad but look at Nick Collins, a knee to the head and his career might be finished. One of the best Safeties in the game and his career could be over before the age of 30. This is a funny game, and I honestly don't wish for anything bad to happen to Rodgers, he is as tough as they come and I hope he has a fine career and can walk out on his terms, but very few do.

[sheepshead]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/heymike0308/brettAaron.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

Without a doubt, losing Finley was a huge blow to the offense's arsenal, but like the 96 team other guys stepped up their performances, Rodgers included.
I can't say anything wrong about Rodgers, he is playing close to perfect football. So don't mistake my views on Favre for my dislike for Rodgers. I think if Rodgers is lucky enough to keep his offensive coaching staff in place, McCarthy stays for Rodgers career, and his offensive firepower keeps reloading I think Rodger is going to have career season average stats that are going to blow any QBs out of the water. He won't play long enough to get any of the career stats, but every season statistic is well within his reach.

After the 1997 season it would have been hard to see any crack in Favre's game, but then Holmgren became disgruntled in Green Bay and left, the wrong coach was hired, musical chairs in the coaching staff happened, their weree misses in the draft, Favre's game slipped along with the talent around him. It is hard to argue that Favre was not the greatest talent at the QB position in the 90s and early 2000s, but he didn't have the pieces or the coaching staff around him. Favre became head strong for several years and didn't have anyone reign him in. McCarthey came to town and in two years Favre has one of his best statistical seasons of his career at 38 years old. Favregate, season with the Jets, and then another fantastic statistical season for the Vikings at 40 years old. It is an entire career that we have to judge Favre, Rodgers is off to a great start to his career, but he isn't even thirty years old and we claim he is already better than Favre. That is what the joke of this conversation is, Rodgers could go out on Sunday scramble get another concussion and blow out his knee and never bee the same. It is sad but look at Nick Collins, a knee to the head and his career might be finished. One of the best Safeties in the game and his career could be over before the age of 30. This is a funny game, and I honestly don't wish for anything bad to happen to Rodgers, he is as tough as they come and I hope he has a fine career and can walk out on his terms, but very few do.


I think were pretty much in agreement here. I'm not saying that Rodges has had a better career. I'm saying that I think he's the better player at this point than Brett was at any point in his career.

I'd give Brett the advantage for spectacular plays.
I'd give Aaron the advantage for spectacular stretches of play.


And of course it's mostly subjective, so there's no right or wrong.

[Upnorth]

I agree that Rodgers is better, I just don't think that two years ago he was hands down better than Favre in his prime. I think that you could argue either way if you want to, and no matter which you choose you win. Its like arguing montana young, manning unitas, bradshaw rothlesburger. Put them in their prime, pick one and you win no matter what.

[Deputy Nutz]

Scott you are being fair, but another way to look at, are the Packers now a more talented team(offensively) than at any point when Favre was under center? I say yes. Although it is closer than I would like to think with the 1997 team and the 2003 team. Favre had the better running game with Ahman Green and a more dominante offensive line than what Rodgers has had.