Aaron was the right choice

[RashanGary]

Just proved it on the field.

1. Better legs
2. Better arm
3. Better head


This debate was settled on the field.

[Lurker64]

Also, generally speaking, a general manager should build a team with a long term view. As in "I want to make the personnel decisions that are best for this team not just this year, but the next year, and for years after that"... generally speaking talented 26 year old QBs are a lot better to have than talented 40 year old QBs.

[red]

this debate was settled about 3 years ago when rodgers proved he could start and be an elite QB

[RashanGary]

I think now theres no doubt to anyone with eyes that Rodgers is also the better player. Better throws. Better movement. Steadier head. Better.

[mmmdk]

Be nice to the BF trolls....on second thought...Nah, don't be! :smk:

[digitaldean]

Rodgers was the right choice because, in the Vikings, we'll see how a team will get hamstrung mortgaging the future to win now.

My brother and several other friends are Favre do or die. Big deal! Favre showed his big play ability in the NFCC vs. the Giants. He can make a big play, but he has a bigger than avg propensity to make a BONEHEAD pick. Case in point the NFCC vs. NYG and the Queens NFCC vs. NO.

After each win, Favre was 'great' this year. After every loss, Ed Werder would bring the latest in the laundry list of Favre's so-called latest injury.

[vince]

http://www.fanfeedr.com/nfl/2010/11/21/the-legend-of-brett-favre-is-dead

The legend of Brett Favre is dead

Today's Vikings vs. Packers game will probably not be the last NFL game Brett Favre plays. It should be, though, because at this point, Favre can't do anything for the Vikings franchise other than continue to pilot their dizzying plunge into a foul pit of football sewage.

The Vikings played their fiercest rival today in a game they had to win to keep alive their dim playoff hopes. Not only did they lose; they were destroyed. Embarrassed. Torn apart. The contrast between the beaten-down, ineffective Favre and the energetic, playmaking Aaron Rodgers could not have been more stark.

The legend of Favre is dead, and Aaron Rodgers killed it.

Favre returned to play in the 2010 season because he wanted to win a Super Bowl. That won't be happening. The Vikings won't be in the playoffs, probably won't be a .500 team, and won't get another positive contribution from Brett Favre. Even if Favre were capable of playing the quarterback position well (and there is zero indication that he can), there's still nothing to gain for the Vikings.

It's time to get Tarvaris Jackson in the line-up. It's probably way past time. With today's waxing at the hands of the Packers, the focus shifts to 2011. Get Jackson on the field in order to let him develop or to see if he's the guy you want to lead the team next year.

Even if you don't buy the "let's play for next year" philosophy, and are still clinging irrationally to some hope that the Vikes can run the table, finish at 9-7 and luck into a Wild Card spot, then guess what? Tarvaris Jackson's your best shot at that, too.

If Favre were to remain the starting quarterback, it wouldn't do anything other than turn the Vikings team into a vehicle for a Brett Favre goodbye tour. Vikings fans deserve better than that. The other 52 guys on the team deserve better than that. They deserve a coaching staff and a quarterback that gives them the best chance to win every week, and they deserve an organization that will do the best thing for the future of Vikings football.

If head coach Brad Childress won't sit Favre, then fire Brad Childress. I don't enjoy calling for a coach's job, but there's no way Childress is going to be employed as the Vikings head coach next season, so what's the downside to replacing him right now (especially if you're hiring a new head coach from within), and letting Tarvaris Jackson, Adrian Peterson and a new coach get a head start on gelling for next season?

This all needs to end right now. There's nothing left to gain for anyone. Even if Favre were to miraculously string together some good games, it won't do anything to get the Vikings in the playoffs. It would just be empty Brett Favre ego stroking. And under the infinitely more likely scenario that Brett Favre continues to play like one of the worst quarterbacks in the league, what's the point in further embarrassing one of the all-time great NFL quarterbacks?

It's not my intention to be mean-spirited here. Brett Favre isn't at fault for every problem the Vikings have, and this all is clearly hurting him, too.

Putting Favre on the sidelines is the kind, compassionate thing to do. This entire year, on and off the field, has been an absolute disaster for the man.

What do you want to see? Favre's historically great career ending with him standing on the sidelines, trying to pass some of his knowledge to a younger quarterback? Or do you want to see this mess dragged out for six more games, where we'll probably see about ten more Favre interceptions and more embarrassing sideline sniping and arguing like we saw today?

It's over, Vikings. Let it be over with whatever small amount of dignity is left.

[RashanGary]

"The legend of Favre is dead and Aaron Rodgers killed it" LMFAO. . . . . You know who really killed it, who set this whole thing in motion? Ted Thompson. As Brett Favre stands today, outplayed, embarassed, dominated by the guy who replaced him. . . None of it would have happened if Ted would have just gotten in line and drafted a guy to help Favre's cause.

As a Packer fan I'm glad he didn't.


THANKSTED!

[vince]

Agreed. It was one hell of a ballsy and risky move at the time to move on with Rodgers. Signature Thompson move.

[ThunderDan]

Agreed. It was one hell of a ballsy and risky move at the time to move on with Rodgers. Signature Thompson move.

That really was a weird draft. A ton of teams ahead of the Pack needed a QB and they kept passing on ARod. I couldn't believe when it was our pick that ARod was still there. I knew the pick wouldn't help us that year but could be the eventual replacement for Favre or 4 years of grooming and trade him to another team for picks a la Hasselback, Brunnel and Brooks.

[buchunter03]

Aaron was definitely the right choice. Not to pimp my own writing, but I wrote this article in 2008. I thought I 'd mention it because the title/situation is exactly the same. 2 years later the article is still true. Except I hate Favre more than anybody today and he deserves everything that is happening to him.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/68161-aaron-rodgers-was-the-right-decision-for-the-green-bay-packers

[Scott Campbell]

Did any of you see those comparison stats they showed today through the first X amount of starts. Rodgers crushed Bert.

[vince]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/19883/packers-finally-cross-the-rubicon


Packers finally cross the Rubicon

MINNEAPOLIS -- With about 10 minutes remaining Sunday at the Metrodome, Charles Woodson allowed himself a moment to scan the stands. He smiled at what he saw: Minnesota Vikings fans already were streaming toward the exits, unwilling to watch another down.

"The best thing about a game like today," the Packers' cornerback said, "is at the end of the game watching their fans leave. If you come in and do that, you've done your job. ... That's what happens when you come in and dominate. That felt good."

Woodson then offered the obligatory caveat.

"It needs to be short-lived," he said.

Indeed, the reality is that Woodson's Green Bay Packers remain entwined in a two-team race with the Chicago Bears for the NFC North title. But for the briefest of moments Sunday, I think everyone associated with the Packers accepted and thoroughly enjoyed the significance of their 31-3 dismantling of the Vikings.

To me, Sunday marked the final stitch in a tapestry three years in the making. The Packers have weathered the storm left by quarterback Brett Favre's departure, emerging a stronger and more complete team than they were in his final season with them. They ceded a pair of NFC North titles to the Vikings in the process, but anyone who watched the Packers' aggression and felt their glee Sunday should understand the symbolism involved.

Remember when the Packers described their parting with Favre as a "crossing of the Rubicon?" It has taken three years, but they've finally landed on the other side.

Evidence was plentiful Sunday at the Metrodome.

It started, honestly, when the Packers won the opening coin toss. Coach Mike McCarthy deferred the decision to the second half, putting his defense on the field for the opening series. How often have you seen McCarthy, a confident play-caller, delay the arrival of his offense on the field?

Never.

McCarthy chose to put his defense -- which has now limited opponents to 10 points in its past three games -- in control.

"I've never deferred a coin toss in my career here and there's a number of factors that go into making that decision," he said. McCarthy wouldn't identify those factors, but one seemed obvious: He knew the Packers' defense has been much better than the Vikings' offense this season and couldn't wait to get it going.

[+] EnlargeAP Photo/Hannah Foslien
Brett Favre completed just 17-of-38 and had a 51.2 passer rating in Minnesota's loss.It was the right call from a micro perspective; the Vikings lost six yards on their opening possession courtesy a false start and a sack, while the Packers set a frenetic defensive tone. From a macro perspective, the decision revealed some growth from McCarthy as a coach. The formerly pass-happy offensive coordinator has come a long way in his regard for total team football.

That defense provided Sunday's singular turning point, channeling a symbolic transfer of game-changing playmaking from Favre. Trailing 10-3 late in the second quarter, Favre drove the Vikings to the Packers' 25-yard line in hopes of pulling into a tie at halftime. But with 1 minute, 13 seconds remaining, Packers cornerback Tramon Williams smartly jumped a route and intercepted a pass intended for receiver Percy Harvin. The Packers essentially put the game away by driving for Aaron Rodgers' 3-yard touchdown pass to James Jones on the ensuing possession.

Afterward, Williams said he knew the play even before the snap, immediately recognizing that Harvin would run a slant.

"I read the formation," Williams said. "I knew the routes that come out of it, and it was exactly what I expected and I acted on it."

Many Packers players and coaches felt enormous satisfaction watching Williams outsmart Favre. I would imagine at least a few also enjoyed the fact that his play sparked a heated sideline exchange between Favre and Vikings offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell. Favre caused the Packers so many headaches over the past few years, reaching a height during last season's sweep, that everyone should be allowed a moment for some sadistic pleasure in his professional demise.

Woodson, among others, has admitted the Packers put too much emotion into last season's matchups -- which Favre won with two dominating performances.

"We read a little bit too much into it and just got ourselves too excited about playing against Favre and that whole dynamic," Woodson said. "This year, the couple of games we came into these matches just knowing that we need to go out and play football and good things will happen. ... We treated this like another game."

I would suggest there were a few moments Sunday when this was not just another game, most notably Rodgers' 22-yard touchdown pass to Greg Jennings with 9:22 remaining. The play came on third-and-1, and no one would have excused the Packers for continuing to run out the clock.

Consider that play the final climb up the shore of the Rubicon. The Packers now find themselves exactly where they planned to be upon passing the torch from Favre to Rodgers. Although it might have come a year or two later than they hoped, the Packers are tied for the NFC North lead and must be considered one of the best teams in football as Week 11 closes.

Over the past 10 months, they have watched the Vikings ride Favre from the NFC Championship Game to what appears to be a losing season. The Vikings now appear washed down the river, headed toward the falls, while the Packers victoriously stand ashore.

"We're a good football team," McCarthy said. "We've always known that we were a good football team. We've got our foot on the gas, hands on the wheel and we're looking straight ahead."

The purge is complete. By late Sunday afternoon, everyone -- Favre, the Vikings and their fans -- were vanquished. Finally.

[Fritz]

THANKS TED!!!

[Little Whiskey]

Did any of you see those comparison stats they showed today through the first X amount of starts. Rodgers crushed Bert.

statistically, but was even in the win/loss ratio

[Scott Campbell]

statistically, but was even in the win/loss ratio


The graphic I saw had him WAY ahead in the W/L ratio.

[pbmax]

The graphic I saw had him WAY ahead in the W/L ratio.

Not so much. They were dead even.

[Lurker64]

The graphic I saw had him WAY ahead in the W/L ratio.

If I'm recalling the graphic correctly, Favre and Rodgers had an identical W/L record through whatever number of games, but Rodgers had significantly fewer interceptions and significantly more TDs.

[Guiness]

I will always think the years Rodgers spent on the bench, taking snaps in practice and letting the game slow down for him is a big part of the reason he is so successful. It's a great study in contrasts to look at him and Alex Smith - what would've happened to Rodgers if he'd started day 1?

Buchunter, do you really think the organization slapped Rodgers in the face? I agree they made the right choice to move on when they did, but if, and that's a big IF Favre hadn't done his retirement stutter step that spring, and just come back, would Rodgers have had any reason to bolt?

[RashanGary]

Rodgers QB rating shot up 5 full points after this game. He's 4th in the NFL in QB rating and tied for 1st in TD's right now. Big year for Rodgers. Not MVP year, but a really big year none the less. He needs to win a playoff game, then he'll start getting in the top tier QB conversation.

[RashanGary]

I thought this was the best game Rodgers has ever played. He passed mostly to the open guy. When he had to, the threw several beautiful passes into tight single coverage. He hit tight windows. He made plays happen with his feet. He had a steady poise that seemed to make a difference. He was a superstar today. For this week, he was one of the top 2 or 3 players in the entire NFL. We don't see many performances like that.

[Scott Campbell]

I thought this was the best game Rodgers has ever played. He passed mostly to the open guy. When he had to, the threw several beautiful passes into tight single coverage. He hit tight windows. He made plays happen with his feet. He had a steady poise that seemed to make a difference. He was a superstar today. For this week, he was one of the top 2 or 3 players in the entire NFL. We don't see many performances like that.


I think he played better against AZ in the playoff game last year.

And in this game he was great in the final 3 quarters, but awful in the first quarter.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think he played better against AZ in the playoff game last year.

And in this game he was great in the final 3 quarters, but awful in the first quarter.

I don't think this was his best game, but he was also relatively awful in the first quarter of that Arizona game. Absolutely lights out after that.

[channtheman]

I don't know if it was his best, he did throw a gift to the Minnesota defender that could have easily changed the outcome of the game. He did finally break the 4 TD mark (in the regular season) though.

[digitaldean]

Rodgers did get lucky when that potential INT was dropped at the goal line. But he did capitalize and got the TD to Jennings soon after.

[mission]

You needed this game to confirm Rodgers was the right choice?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodgers ranks 5th amongst all NFL QBs in pass rating for QBs with at least 215 attempts.

He ranks 2nd in the NFC in passer rating--behind only Mike Vick. Vick has thrown 191 passes--compared to Rodgers 334.

In the NFC, Rodgers ranks 4th in completion %, 2nd in yards, 2nd in yards/attempt, 3rd in passing TDs, 1st in first down %. He's also 3rd in the NFL rushing yards amongst QBs (behind Vick and Josh Freeman) and has cut down his sacks dramatically (although that started the second half of last year). He's also the only QB with 215 or more attempts without a fumble. He is also tied with Drew Brees with the most total TDs amongst QBs when you add his 3 rushing TDs to his 19 passing TDs.

BTW, he has a better passer rating than Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Matt Ryan.

[packrulz]

"The legend of Favre is dead and Aaron Rodgers killed it" LMFAO. . . . . You know who really killed it, who set this whole thing in motion? Ted Thompson. As Brett Favre stands today, outplayed, embarassed, dominated by the guy who replaced him. . . None of it would have happened if Ted would have just gotten in line and drafted a guy to help Favre's cause.

As a Packer fan I'm glad he didn't.


THANKSTED!

The icing on the cake was when he used the draft pick from trading Favre to move up into the first round and draft Clay Matthews. With all the injuries this year a lot of teams would've tanked, grabbing Green from the Jets really solidified the defensive line. The Packers are young, they could end up being dominant for years to come, and Ted might end up being a better GM than Ron Wolf. He needs to find a stud running back though. The game Against the Falcons will be a better test of their strength.

[packerbacker1234]

There was little doubt, really, that AR was the right choice after his first season. The only thing that deterred that was how Favre was 8-3 with the jets before hurting his throwing shoulder, and how last year he put together one of the best seasons by a QB ever statistically. He should of been the MVP last year over manning, and everyone knew that.

However, just because he had a good 11 games for the jets and MVP numbers last year never really meant that Rodgers wasn't the right choice. All that meant was that yeah, Favre had a couple years left him and sure, he knows how to play the game. We knew this - he did it for us in 2007. We knew favre could still play at the time that we went AR over him. AR has done just about as well for us as favre would of. Even last year, with the MVP numbers Favre put up, AR almost matched them. He was right there, neck and neck, except that Rodgers had more rushing TD's.


The only reason, at this point, to even say Favre would of been the better choice over Rodgers is because Rodgers hasn't won a playoff game yet. Where as, Favre has a ring. Sure, that ring was over a decade ago, but he's also been to the NFC Championship game 2 times in the last 3 seasons.

Now, does Rodgers sustain this over the course of his career? That has yet to be seen. One thing you can say about Favre is outside of maybe 2 or 3 years of his playing career, he consistently played at a very high level. Sure, he may have had his falls in the playoffs, but for the regular season he was amazing in general. Rodgers has had 3 statistically good years and it loosk like 2 great winning record years. I am happy. He is younger, more willing to run the ball when he has too, and less prone to making the bad throws.

Sure, Favre still does a couple things better - or at least - there were things Favre did better before he came back and stayed one year too long that most feel Rodgers will never be able to do - and that is fine. Every QB is their own ordeal, and Favre is a HoF player. OF course he has some things he does very well most can't do, such as his uncanny ability to hit the slant dead on. This may all be gone well, but it was always the one play that defined his career. One of the best slant throwers I have ever seen.

Rodgers was the right choice 3 years ago, and he's obviously still the right choice now. Sure, favre may have put together two more good seasons for us, but we would of lost Rodgers in the process, and thus after those two seasons we could be scrambling for another decade. Rodgers has a better sart to his career statistically - but it's all about wins and a ring. If AR never gets a ring, for many, it will be hard to say long haul he was the superior QB to favre.

[Scott Campbell]

There was little doubt, really, that AR was the right choice after his first season. The only thing that deterred that was how Favre was 8-3 with the jets before hurting his throwing shoulder, and how last year he put together one of the best seasons by a QB ever statistically. He should of been the MVP last year over manning, and everyone knew that.

However, just because he had a good 11 games for the jets and MVP numbers last year never really meant that Rodgers wasn't the right choice. All that meant was that yeah, Favre had a couple years left him and sure, he knows how to play the game. We knew this - he did it for us in 2007. We knew favre could still play at the time that we went AR over him. AR has done just about as well for us as favre would of. Even last year, with the MVP numbers Favre put up, AR almost matched them. He was right there, neck and neck, except that Rodgers had more rushing TD's.


The only reason, at this point, to even say Favre would of been the better choice over Rodgers is because Rodgers hasn't won a playoff game yet. Where as, Favre has a ring. Sure, that ring was over a decade ago, but he's also been to the NFC Championship game 2 times in the last 3 seasons.

Now, does Rodgers sustain this over the course of his career? That has yet to be seen. One thing you can say about Favre is outside of maybe 2 or 3 years of his playing career, he consistently played at a very high level. Sure, he may have had his falls in the playoffs, but for the regular season he was amazing in general. Rodgers has had 3 statistically good years and it loosk like 2 great winning record years. I am happy. He is younger, more willing to run the ball when he has too, and less prone to making the bad throws.

Sure, Favre still does a couple things better - or at least - there were things Favre did better before he came back and stayed one year too long that most feel Rodgers will never be able to do - and that is fine. Every QB is their own ordeal, and Favre is a HoF player. OF course he has some things he does very well most can't do, such as his uncanny ability to hit the slant dead on. This may all be gone well, but it was always the one play that defined his career. One of the best slant throwers I have ever seen.

Rodgers was the right choice 3 years ago, and he's obviously still the right choice now. Sure, favre may have put together two more good seasons for us, but we would of lost Rodgers in the process, and thus after those two seasons we could be scrambling for another decade. Rodgers has a better sart to his career statistically - but it's all about wins and a ring. If AR never gets a ring, for many, it will be hard to say long haul he was the superior QB to favre.



Not a bad post, and kudos to you for showing up even after yesterdays drubbing.

1) I'm fine with Manning winning the MVP last year. He was awesome.
2) Rodgers will have a significant edge on the superiority comparisons just by avoiding all the drama.

[Pugger]

"The legend of Favre is dead and Aaron Rodgers killed it" LMFAO. . . . . You know who really killed it, who set this whole thing in motion? Ted Thompson. As Brett Favre stands today, outplayed, embarassed, dominated by the guy who replaced him. . . None of it would have happened if Ted would have just gotten in line and drafted a guy to help Favre's cause.

As a Packer fan I'm glad he didn't.


THANKSTED!

No, FAVRE killed it, not TT. #4 was the one who quit on a 13-3 team and "retired" and started the whole mess back in 2008.

[channtheman]

Not a bad post, and kudos to you for showing up even after yesterdays drubbing.

1) I'm fine with Manning winning the MVP last year. He was awesome.
2) Rodgers will have a significant edge on the superiority comparisons just by avoiding all the drama.

If Favre didn't win the MVP last year, Brees should have won it. And the year before it should have been Brees or Rivers. The media love for Manning is sickening.

[Patler]

The media love for Manning is sickening.

Second only to the media love for Favre, until perhaps this season.

[pbmax]

Pack1234 comes to bury Favre, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Favre ... The noble Rodgers
Hath told you Favre was interceptious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Favre answered it ...
Here, under leave of Rodgers and the rest,
(For Rodgers is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come Pack1234 to speak in Favre's funeral ...
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Rodgers says he was interceptious;
And Rodgers is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Favre seem interceptious?
When that the poor have cried, Favre hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Rodgers says he was interceptious;
And Rodgers is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
Pack1234 thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Rodgers says he was interceptious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
Pack1234 speaks not to disprove what Rodgers spoke,
But here Pack1234 is to speak what Pack1234 does know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Favre,
And Pack1234 must pause till it come back to me.

[channtheman]

Second only to the media love for Favre, until perhaps this season.

The media love for Favre has really turned in the last few years. Now he's a big story, but they don't love him (as evidenced by Manning winning the MVP over him - Favre was lights out last year and should have won the MVP).

[packrulz]

Pack1234 comes to bury Favre, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Favre ... The noble Rodgers
Hath told you Favre was interceptious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Favre answered it ...
Here, under leave of Rodgers and the rest,
(For Rodgers is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come Pack1234 to speak in Favre's funeral ...
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Rodgers says he was interceptious;
And Rodgers is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Favre seem interceptious?
When that the poor have cried, Favre hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Rodgers says he was interceptious;
And Rodgers is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
Pack1234 thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Rodgers says he was interceptious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
Pack1234 speaks not to disprove what Rodgers spoke,
But here Pack1234 is to speak what Pack1234 does know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Favre,
And Pack1234 must pause till it come back to me.

Good stuff!

[Patler]

The media love for Favre has really turned in the last few years. Now he's a big story, but they don't love him (as evidenced by Manning winning the MVP over him - Favre was lights out last year and should have won the MVP).

I agree that the media love for Favre has changed, I disagree that Favre was a clear MVP choice over Manning.

[bobblehead]

There was little doubt, really, that AR was the right choice after his first season. The only thing that deterred that was how Favre was 8-3 with the jets before hurting his throwing shoulder, and how last year he put together one of the best seasons by a QB ever statistically. He should of been the MVP last year over manning, and everyone knew that.

However, just because he had a good 11 games for the jets and MVP numbers last year never really meant that Rodgers wasn't the right choice. All that meant was that yeah, Favre had a couple years left him and sure, he knows how to play the game. We knew this - he did it for us in 2007. We knew favre could still play at the time that we went AR over him. AR has done just about as well for us as favre would of. Even last year, with the MVP numbers Favre put up, AR almost matched them. He was right there, neck and neck, except that Rodgers had more rushing TD's.


The only reason, at this point, to even say Favre would of been the better choice over Rodgers is because Rodgers hasn't won a playoff game yet. Where as, Favre has a ring. Sure, that ring was over a decade ago, but he's also been to the NFC Championship game 2 times in the last 3 seasons.

Now, does Rodgers sustain this over the course of his career? That has yet to be seen. One thing you can say about Favre is outside of maybe 2 or 3 years of his playing career, he consistently played at a very high level. Sure, he may have had his falls in the playoffs, but for the regular season he was amazing in general. Rodgers has had 3 statistically good years and it loosk like 2 great winning record years. I am happy. He is younger, more willing to run the ball when he has too, and less prone to making the bad throws.

Sure, Favre still does a couple things better - or at least - there were things Favre did better before he came back and stayed one year too long that most feel Rodgers will never be able to do - and that is fine. Every QB is their own ordeal, and Favre is a HoF player. OF course he has some things he does very well most can't do, such as his uncanny ability to hit the slant dead on. This may all be gone well, but it was always the one play that defined his career. One of the best slant throwers I have ever seen.

Rodgers was the right choice 3 years ago, and he's obviously still the right choice now. Sure, favre may have put together two more good seasons for us, but we would of lost Rodgers in the process, and thus after those two seasons we could be scrambling for another decade. Rodgers has a better sart to his career statistically - but it's all about wins and a ring. If AR never gets a ring, for many, it will be hard to say long haul he was the superior QB to favre.

very good post and classy. Let evryone know its ok to love favre, as long as you can keep a clear head and not extend that to hating TT, MM, and all who critcize him. BF won us a superbowl, and I'll always remember him for the holmgren years. The other wounds healed a bit sunday. I'll be even happier when ARod's "joe Montana" coolness extends to the playoffs....and with this D behind him I expect it will.

[Fritz]

Brilliant, PB.

[bobblehead]

I agree that the media love for Favre has changed, I disagree that Favre was a clear MVP choice over Manning.

I was hating on him at the time, but he got my vote....I still think it was his finest season ever.....I also thought he did it by doing exactly what MM begged him to do. Getting in shape and playing within himself.

[Patler]

I agree that the media love for Favre has changed, I disagree that Favre was a clear MVP choice over Manning.


I was hating on him at the time, but he got my vote....I still think it was his finest season ever.....I also thought he did it by doing exactly what MM begged him to do. Getting in shape and playing within himself.

I agree that it may have been Favre's best year statistically, and that he did it by playing within himself as MM begged him to. But I also think all of that happened because Favre no longer had to be the offensive focus. The Vikings got as far as they did because they had a very good defense, Percy Harvin on STs, Adrian Peterson to run the ball, and good receivers. Favre was able to be just a piece of the overall puzzle, rather than the primary part for scoring points. While he played exceptionally well, his value to the Vikings may have been less than his value to the Packers in some of those years when it was Favre and not much more for points. Would the Vikings have gone as far without Favre? Probably not, but I think offensively Peterson may be a more important part than Favre. AFter all, they weren't bad before Favre got there.

The Colts without Manning would be a totally different team, I think. Therefore, I think Manning might be more valuable.

Just my feeling, but I can understand yours as well.

[sheepshead]

Payton Manning runs an offense like few I have ever seen. I hate to admit it but he will likely go down as one of the greatest QBs of all time.

[sheepshead]

Just proved it on the field.

1. Better legs
2. Better arm
3. Better head


This debate was settled on the field.

I thought this was settled years ago.

[Joemailman]

I thought this was settled years ago.

Well, some might have argued otherwise after what happened last year. Favre did beat the Packers twice last year. However, that now appears to be a bump in the road leading to a number of years of the Packers being an elite team led by an elite quarterback.

[Zool]

I agree that it may have been Favre's best year statistically, and that he did it by playing within himself as MM begged him to. But I also think all of that happened because Favre no longer had to be the offensive focus. The Vikings got as far as they did because they had a very good defense, Percy Harvin on STs, Adrian Peterson to run the ball, and good receivers. Favre was able to be just a piece of the overall puzzle, rather than the primary part for scoring points. While he played exceptionally well, his value to the Vikings may have been less than his value to the Packers in some of those years when it was Favre and not much more for points. Would the Vikings have gone as far without Favre? Probably not, but I think offensively Peterson may be a more important part than Favre. AFter all, they weren't bad before Favre got there.

The Colts without Manning would be a totally different team, I think. Therefore, I think Manning might be more valuable.

Just my feeling, but I can understand yours as well.

The Colts had a better receiving corps but not by that much. The Vikings run game was light years better than the Colts and their D was better. Both teams lost to the Saints, but I'd still give the nod to old Sourpus Manning. As Patler said, take him off the Colts and I doubt they win 8 games.

[sheepshead]

Well, some might have argued otherwise after what happened last year. Favre did beat the Packers twice last year. However, that now appears to be a bump in the road leading to a number of years of the Packers being an elite team led by an elite quarterback.

oh :-/

[channtheman]

I agree that it may have been Favre's best year statistically, and that he did it by playing within himself as MM begged him to. But I also think all of that happened because Favre no longer had to be the offensive focus. The Vikings got as far as they did because they had a very good defense, Percy Harvin on STs, Adrian Peterson to run the ball, and good receivers. Favre was able to be just a piece of the overall puzzle, rather than the primary part for scoring points. While he played exceptionally well, his value to the Vikings may have been less than his value to the Packers in some of those years when it was Favre and not much more for points. Would the Vikings have gone as far without Favre? Probably not, but I think offensively Peterson may be a more important part than Favre. AFter all, they weren't bad before Favre got there.

The Colts without Manning would be a totally different team, I think. Therefore, I think Manning might be more valuable.

Just my feeling, but I can understand yours as well.

I see what you are saying about the Vikings without Favre last year, but the argument that the Colts without Manning as a good reason for him to win it doesn't make sense to me. Take Brees away from the Saints, are they still a playoff team? How about take Rodgers away from us? Do we still make the playoffs. I still don't think Manning should have won the award last year because if we rule out Favre which is fine (Vikes were a playoff team without him) then why not give it to Brees?

What I think happened was is that the media turned on Favre (like I said, big story but they don't love him anymore) and wanted to spite him and make Manning break one of his records (MVP's). Yeah conspiracy maybe, but there were other deserving QB's for the MVP and I don't recall them even being close in the voting.

[packerbacker1234]

In both losing to the saints - Manning and Favre both threw essentially game ending interceptions to the same guy, and boht were ugly. Favre through across his body on the final drive, Manning threw it right to the defender on a medium in route.

[packerbacker1234]

Also to add on, After the amazing game ender against the 48ers, their offense became all about Favre. He was tossing it almost 40 times a game every game, and suddenly scoring 30+ points all the time. AP's numbers started to dip - they were still really good for any RB, but he had far less carries. He still made occasional plays, but it was most about Favre in them scoring 30+ a game, where in years pat they were lycky to get in the low 20's and hoped their defense held pat.

Without Favre, do the vikings make the playoffs last year? Who knows. Chances are the packers take the division, they lose 2 or 3 more games (the vikings), and they are in tight races with philyl and such for wild card spots. Doubtful they get within one play of the super bowl.

Of course, it's the vikings. As if they will ever get a ring.

[ThunderDan]

Minnesota was the 2008 NFC North Champions without BF and made the playoffs.

[ThunderDan]

In both losing to the saints - Manning and Favre both threw essentially game ending interceptions to the same guy, and boht were ugly. Favre through across his body on the final drive, Manning threw it right to the defender on a medium in route.

So because of this BF deserved the MVP in 2009?

[Packgator]

Rodgers vs Favre (head to head stats)

Games: 4

Record: 2-2

Rodgers: 11 TD, 3 INT, 317 Yards Per Game

Favre: 8 TD, 4 INT, 234 Yards Per Game

[3irty1]

I agree that it may have been Favre's best year statistically, and that he did it by playing within himself as MM begged him to. But I also think all of that happened because Favre no longer had to be the offensive focus. The Vikings got as far as they did because they had a very good defense, Percy Harvin on STs, Adrian Peterson to run the ball, and good receivers. Favre was able to be just a piece of the overall puzzle, rather than the primary part for scoring points. While he played exceptionally well, his value to the Vikings may have been less than his value to the Packers in some of those years when it was Favre and not much more for points. Would the Vikings have gone as far without Favre? Probably not, but I think offensively Peterson may be a more important part than Favre. AFter all, they weren't bad before Favre got there.

The Colts without Manning would be a totally different team, I think. Therefore, I think Manning might be more valuable.

Just my feeling, but I can understand yours as well.

I agree with that bolded part but you can't have the year Favre had last year without being the offensive focus. He was by far the most important cog to that offense. The Vikings did make the playoffs the year before without him but they definitely didn't belong there. It was something of a perfect storm season where everything that could bounce their way did and that was good enough for 9 or 10 wins.

[gbgary]

Aaron was the right choice!

certainly was. he hit the ground running. no serious growing pains. no learning curve. Packer fans have been blessed. it's up to tt to keep talent around him though or it will all be for not. so far so good. some good luck along the way wouldn't hurt also.

[Patler]

I see what you are saying about the Vikings without Favre last year, but the argument that the Colts without Manning as a good reason for him to win it doesn't make sense to me. Take Brees away from the Saints, are they still a playoff team? How about take Rodgers away from us? Do we still make the playoffs. I still don't think Manning should have won the award last year because if we rule out Favre which is fine (Vikes were a playoff team without him) then why not give it to Brees?

What I think happened was is that the media turned on Favre (like I said, big story but they don't love him anymore) and wanted to spite him and make Manning break one of his records (MVP's). Yeah conspiracy maybe, but there were other deserving QB's for the MVP and I don't recall them even being close in the voting.

I wasn't saying Manning deserved it over Brees, just saying he deserved it over Favre. Deciding between Manning and Brees would have been difficult. Personally, I might have voted for Brees, but it would have been tough. Not sure who else I would have had high on my list last year.

I can't accept any conspiracy theory among the media to spite Favre by voting for Manning. Far too many individuals would have to be on board to rig the voting. The vast majority have no direct dealings with any of the players other than the ones on the team they cover. What reason would the vast majority have to do it?

[channtheman]

I wasn't saying Manning deserved it over Brees, just saying he deserved it over Favre. Deciding between Manning and Brees would have been difficult. Personally, I might have voted for Brees, but it would have been tough. Not sure who else I would have had high on my list last year.

I can't accept any conspiracy theory among the media to spite Favre by voting for Manning. Far too many individuals would have to be on board to rig the voting. The vast majority have no direct dealings with any of the players other than the ones on the team they cover. What reason would the vast majority have to do it?

My apologies for confusing that (in regards to Manning winning over Brees).

Yeah just my own little conspiracy thrown in there. No real reason for it and obviously no proof. I looked up the voting yesterday evening and without going back I think the results were 37 votes Manning, 7 for Brees, and then just a couple for Favre and Rivers. I suppose a lot of people picked Manning over Brees barely, but I don't know why. I think how the Super Bowl played out helps my argument that Brees should have gotten it over Manning.

[Patler]

Well, some might have argued otherwise after what happened last year. Favre did beat the Packers twice last year. However, that now appears to be a bump in the road leading to a number of years of the Packers being an elite team led by an elite quarterback.

Sorry in advance Joe. I'm not addressing this at you specifically, just using your post as an example. I'm probably guilty of it myself sometimes.

This phraseology, used also by the national media, has really gotten to me the last two years. Favre didn't beat the Packers. The Vikings beat the Packers. This year, the Packers didn't beat Favre, they beat the Vikings. A lot more went into the Packer losses last year and wins this year than just Brett Favre. Yet, the Packers are always addressed collectively, and pitted against an individual, Favre.

This reminds me of a comment from a Packer a few years ago when Favre left GB. I don't even remember who it was, if he was even named. Basically he said maybe now people would realize that there are other very good players in GB, and that the Packers are not just Brett Favre. That same perception has permeated the media treatment of the Vikings. Favre beat the Packers, the Packers beat Favre, Favre wants a Super Bowl in the worst way; Favre, Favre, Favre.

Then we as fans wonder sometime why certain players seem to put themselves above their teams!

[sheepshead]

Ok, I dont mean to be a pain here. But is this post about the 2005 draft? Like should TT have taken him or someone else? Or Rodgers or Favre? Because I think it was clear early on that Rodgers was our QB of the future. So was there some consideration with some that TT was going to dump Rodgers for Favre? Because I dont think that was ever a consideration.