Aaron Rodgers, the most complete Packer QB ever?

[Patler]

I read this description recently, and thought it was good. I wish I remembered who wrote it, but I don't; so my apologies for not properly crediting it.

The gist of the article was that AR is the best ever for Green Bay because he is:

Bart Starr with a better arm,
Lynn Dickey with better legs.
Brett Favre with a better head.

You know what? It might be true

[pbmax]

It makes me think he isn't long for the world of QB'ing. At least tonight he seemed mostly unscathed. But its hard to find fault with the QB he has become.

[LEWCWA]

I read this description recently, and thought it was good. I wish I remembered who wrote it, but I don't; so my apologies for not properly crediting it.

The gist of the article was that AR is the best ever for Green Bay because he is:

Bart Starr with a better arm,
Lynn Dickey with better legs.
Brett Favre with a better head.

You know what? It might be true


If he would just go with a mullet next year he would have it all!! Sans the Magic man!

[Fritz]

I'm glad that someone thought to include Dickey - that guy was a damn good QB, except he was about as mobile as Roseanne Barr.

[Kiwon]

Perception vs. Reality.

Funny how the knock against A-Rod his first two years was that he was not tough enough. Was he injured two years in a row despite minimal playing time? Yeah, he was. So was he tough along and it was unfair criticism or did he become tough?

[mmmdk]

Aaron Rodgers has been my avatar since Brett Favre retired [as a Packer]. I loved the draft pick, I have several Cal games on dvd with my man Rodgers; I was believing & hoping that Rodgers was our next great QB. Proud to have been a backer since day one. Equally sorry that I didn't detect the qualities of Mike McCarthy and that I merely judged him on gamedays - I've think we've all learned what McCarthy is about as a head coach. A great personel guy & gets his players ready and in position to excell; heck playcalling improved during 2010-11 season & Packers are super bowl Champs. Lastly, I never question TT and that just leavesthis to say: THANKSTED

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm glad that someone thought to include Dickey - that guy was a damn good QB, except he was about as mobile as Roseanne Barr.
Always been a fan of Dickey, he may have been the first QB born without cartiledge in either of his knees.

[Smidgeon]

Perception vs. Reality.

Funny how the knock against A-Rod his first two years was that he was not tough enough. Was he injured two years in a row despite minimal playing time? Yeah, he was. So was he tough along and it was unfair criticism or did he become tough?

I think it was unfair criticism. After all, he broke his foot against NE one year in the third quarter (if I remember correctly) and finished the game on a broken foot. When people were wondering if he was injury-prone, Christl's response was "wait until he's a full-time starter;" the idea being that when his body was used to getting hit several times a day, it would hold up better than when it was getting hit only for only one game in a football year.

As an interesting stat of comparison, in a GB uniform, there were only 6 games that Favre couldn't complete due to injury. In half of them, his backup QB suffered a season-ending injury and finished the year on IR. I don't think that's because they were all injury-prone. More because a backup QB's body isn't used to the grind of getting hit all the time.

[Gunakor]

Perception vs. Reality.

Funny how the knock against A-Rod his first two years was that he was not tough enough. Was he injured two years in a row despite minimal playing time? Yeah, he was. So was he tough along and it was unfair criticism or did he become tough?

Definitely unfair criticism. People focused solely on his being on IR while paying no attention to the nearly 30 minutes of football he played against the Patriots on a broken foot before going on IR. Rodgers is a warrior.

[rbaloha1]

The complete package in terms of intelligence, arm strength and accuracy.

[mmmdk]

The complete package in terms of intelligence, arm strength and accuracy.


My wife think he looks cute too! :smile:

That's settled then; Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL...PERIOD!!!

[channtheman]

I remember being sad when I heard about Favre retiring (the first time) but as soon as I looked up the Rodgers highlights against the Cowboys on youtube (I believe I even made a post about it on here) I was behind him 100 percent. I was so excited for him to play. And now just 3 years starting and already a Super Bowl Champ! Get ready for a fun ride folks!

[RashanGary]

Makes sense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I read this description recently, and thought it was good. I wish I remembered who wrote it, but I don't; so my apologies for not properly crediting it.

The gist of the article was that AR is the best ever for Green Bay because he is:

Bart Starr with a better arm,
Lynn Dickey with better legs.
Brett Favre with a better head.

You know what? It might be true

I was thinking about this today. He has the physical talent of a young Brett (accuracy, rocket arm, escapability) but the mental genius of Starr. He has what they both had also--toughness and leadership. Skies the limit. I just pray he stays healthy.

[RashanGary]

I don't think he has the physical ability quite that Favre had. Favre had a slightly stronger arm and Favre was a tank to take down in his prime (very much like Big Ben). He's close though and his head is much, much better. I'm hoping he can be a multi champion and go down as the greatest Packer QB of all time (even if he doesn't hold the regular season longevity records).

[HarveyWallbangers]

Favre wasn't like Big Ben. He had escapability and a nimbleness about him, but he wasn't a tank. Give Favre a slight edge on arm strength, give Rodgers a slight edge on accuracy and mobility. Both had rare physical ability.

[Pugger]

I think it was unfair criticism. After all, he broke his foot against NE one year in the third quarter (if I remember correctly) and finished the game on a broken foot. When people were wondering if he was injury-prone, Christl's response was "wait until he's a full-time starter;" the idea being that when his body was used to getting hit several times a day, it would hold up better than when it was getting hit only for only one game in a football year.

As an interesting stat of comparison, in a GB uniform, there were only 6 games that Favre couldn't complete due to injury. In half of them, his backup QB suffered a season-ending injury and finished the year on IR. I don't think that's because they were all injury-prone. More because a backup QB's body isn't used to the grind of getting hit all the time.

I suspect Favre might not have had his streak intact had because I'd wager he had a concussion or two while he played in GB but the league didn't treat those concussions with caution like they do today.

[swede]

Favre wasn't like Big Ben. He had escapability and a nimbleness about him, but he wasn't a tank. Give Favre a slight edge on arm strength, give Rodgers a slight edge on accuracy and mobility. Both had rare physical ability.

NFL Network did a series of programs on different Super Bowl winners and I got a fresh peek at how the young Favre used to play. In '92 and '93 Favre ran around like a chicken with his head cut off and made some really stupid picks.

As Holmgren got him under control there were fewer picks, and his scrambles were frequently spin-aways from contact followed by stretching laterally as he looked for a receiver, so I think you are right Harv. Favre did bust his weight up to about 260 for a few years, and maybe Harrell is remembering how big he was then.

[pbmax]

NFL Network did a series of programs on different Super Bowl winners and I got a fresh peek at how the young Favre used to play. In '92 and '93 Favre ran around like a chicken with his head cut off and made some really stupid picks.

As Holmgren got him under control there were fewer picks, and his scrambles were frequently spin-aways from contact followed by stretching laterally as he looked for a receiver, so I think you are right Harv. Favre did bust his weight up to about 260 for a few years, and maybe Harrell is remembering how big he was then.

Didn't he come in close to 230-240 and Winters thought he was a linebacker? I do remember he gained weight again later and didn't like playing with it.

But Favre was never as big as BR. Favre was always willing (early in career) to take a blast while throwing, and he could move enough to make a sacker get a glancing shot at him rather than a takedown. What I remember (and Kevin Greene would support me) is that after slipping the big hit but still in the grasp, he would attempt to complete a pass. Often successfully.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think he has the physical ability quite that Favre had. Favre had a slightly stronger arm and Favre was a tank to take down in his prime (very much like Big Ben). He's close though and his head is much, much better. I'm hoping he can be a multi champion and go down as the greatest Packer QB of all time (even if he doesn't hold the regular season longevity records).


Rodgers also puts in the hours.

[vince]

Both Favre and Roethlisberger like to fling their dick around and have little regard for women, so they have that in common anyway.

At least Favre asks for permission though.

[mmmdk]

Both Favre and Roethlisberger like to fling their dick around and have little regard for women, so they have that in common anyway.

At least Favre asks for permission though.

Ok...explain?

[RashanGary]

I watched a highlight of Favre last year. I remember noting now hard he was to tackle. Very similar game to Big Ben. LB's would bounce off him and DL would miss arm tackles on him. I still think he was a tank.

[mission]

I don't think Favre had/has a stronger arm than Aaron does now. Seems like an urban legend to me. Don't know how AR could make some of those throws with any more velocity than he does.

The other part of the "streak" is that Favre was scared to take a hit. He'd always throw it away/up for grabs before getting rocked, especially later in his career. Maybe not a bad idea, but it contributed to most of his INTs. Rodgers is too smart for that.

IMO, the Favre vs Rodgers conversation is moot. Favre hasn't done what Rodgers has in a SB/playoffs...

Starr <> Rodgers >>>>>>>> Favre

[channtheman]

I don't think Favre had/has a stronger arm than Aaron does now. Seems like an urban legend to me. Don't know how AR could make some of those throws with any more velocity than he does.

The other part of the "streak" is that Favre was scared to take a hit. He'd always throw it away/up for grabs before getting rocked, especially later in his career. Maybe not a bad idea, but it contributed to most of his INTs. Rodgers is too smart for that.

IMO, the Favre vs Rodgers conversation is moot. Favre hasn't done what Rodgers has in a SB/playoffs...

Starr <> Rodgers >>>>>>>> Favre

Yup. Rodgers not having a Super Bowl win was the only thing holding him back. I don't know if he'll ever surpass Starr. Even if Rodgers wins 3 more Super Bowls I think we might just look at those 2 on the same level.

[mission]

Yeah man I tend to agree. I really have no interest in ever arguing if Rodgers is/was better than #15. For starters, I never got to watch Starr live and second, it just really doesn't matter. If the guy wins multiple rings and does it with class then we'll just say they were the greatest of their respective eras and generations.

All the Favre crew had was AR can't win a big game and then it was AR can't win in the playoffs and then it was Super Bowl. In fact a shitload of rats have spewed that this season, last and even the year before. Won't see them bringing it back up that they doubted his ability to win the big game. Can't tell you how sick of that I was. A bunch of Colin Cowherds acting like they knew it all along now.

5-1 in the playoffs.
1 SB ring
1 SB MVP against the best D in the league (so many say but I'd vote different)

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I honestly believe the Rodgers is the best PLAYER in the league after watching him this season. I love this guy. I loved Brett and growing up he was always my favortie player and probably will be my all time favortie palyer. But Rodgers is up there I think with the best in history with the way he has played these last three years. I couldn't bring myself to write anything positive until the postseason was over b/c I knew that winning the superbowl is what makes good players great. Rodgers is offically a GREAT player. I hope he continues playing great and we repeat next season! Him and Matthews are my favortie packers right now with Jennings right behind them. My facebook pic is clay and arod with the championship belt and the torphy! I remember the pack during the day and STILL can't believe we won it. Amazing!!!!!!!

Next important thing we need to happen is to get this CBA stuff worked out b/c this team is very capable of repeating!

[swede]

Yeah man I tend to agree. I really have no interest in ever arguing if Rodgers is/was better than #15. For starters, I never got to watch Starr live and second, it just really doesn't matter. If the guy wins multiple rings and does it with class then we'll just say they were the greatest of their respective eras and generations.

All the Favre crew had was AR can't win a big game and then it was AR can't win in the playoffs and then it was Super Bowl. In fact a shitload of rats have spewed that this season, last and even the year before. Won't see them bringing it back up that they doubted his ability to win the big game. Can't tell you how sick of that I was. A bunch of Colin Cowherds acting like they knew it all along now.

5-1 in the playoffs.
1 SB ring
1 SB MVP against the best D in the league (so many say but I'd vote different)
Golly I hate that unctuous, oily, self-impressed loathsome jerk. I rarely can listen for more than a few minutes before I have to tune out, but I did hear him list all of the best young QB's--including AR--and then say that Ben Roethlisburger was the guy you would want to build a young winning team around.

Do you suppose he will rethink, recant, or backpedal?

If I had Skinbasket's way with words I would say very bad mean things about Colin Cowherd.

[The Shadow]

Ok, for me, it breaks down this way :
1. Starr : 2-0 in Super Bowls + all the championships before the actual invention of the 'Super Bowl'.
Talk all you wish about the talent of his supporting cast, which varied over the years - but he simply got it done, many times over - never an easy task, ever.
2. Rodgers : 1-0 Super Bowl record. A plus : Rodgers accomplished his Super Bowl season with a team by no means head & shoulders talent-wise above the competition - and in spite of a ridiculous number of injuries. And the handicap of winning game after game on the road is relevant.
3. Favre : Super Bowl record - 1-1. In my opinion, Favre's single championship came only when Ron Wolf had assembled a team around him clearly, talent-wise, superior in the NFL. He also failed to win the next year with the same basic talent against a decided underdog.
In addition, he also had (at least in my opinion) the NFL's most talented team around him last year in Minnesota, and did not bring home the trophy.
If Rodgers stays healthy, I will perhaps have to really start comparing him to Bart.

[pbmax]

Golly I hate that unctuous, oily, self-impressed loathsome jerk. I rarely can listen for more than a few minutes before I have to tune out, but I did hear him list all of the best young QB's--including AR--and then say that Ben Roethlisburger was the guy you would want to build a young winning team around.

Do you suppose he will rethink, recant, or backpedal?

If I had Skinbasket's way with words I would say very bad mean things about Colin Cowherd.

I could not agree with this more. Three weeks ago, he was taking Matt Ryan over Rodgers.

[channtheman]

Golly I hate that unctuous, oily, self-impressed loathsome jerk. I rarely can listen for more than a few minutes before I have to tune out, but I did hear him list all of the best young QB's--including AR--and then say that Ben Roethlisburger was the guy you would want to build a young winning team around.

Do you suppose he will rethink, recant, or backpedal?

If I had Skinbasket's way with words I would say very bad mean things about Colin Cowherd.

Very stupid thing to say. You want to build your team around a good QB. Roethlisberger has been a game manager that has pulled some 4th quarter comebacks out of his ass. (I actually only know of Super Bowl XLIII). Every time I watch this guy, he sucks.


Ok, for me, it breaks down this way :
1. Starr : 2-0 in Super Bowls + all the championships before the actual invention of the 'Super Bowl'.
Talk all you wish about the talent of his supporting cast, which varied over the years - but he simply got it done, many times over - never an easy task, ever.
2. Rodgers : 1-0 Super Bowl record. A plus : Rodgers accomplished his Super Bowl season with a team by no means head & shoulders talent-wise above the competition - and in spite of a ridiculous number of injuries. And the handicap of winning game after game on the road is relevant.
3. Favre : Super Bowl record - 1-1. In my opinion, Favre's single championship came only when Ron Wolf had assembled a team around him clearly, talent-wise, superior in the NFL. He also failed to win the next year with the same basic talent against a decided underdog.
In addition, he also had (at least in my opinion) the NFL's most talented team around him last year in Minnesota, and did not bring home the trophy.
If Rodgers stays healthy, I will perhaps have to really start comparing him to Bart.

Interesting stat is that Rodgers in just this postseason, has as many road postseason wins as Favre did his entire career.

[denverYooper]

I don't think Favre had/has a stronger arm than Aaron does now. Seems like an urban legend to me. Don't know how AR could make some of those throws with any more velocity than he does.

The other part of the "streak" is that Favre was scared to take a hit. He'd always throw it away/up for grabs before getting rocked, especially later in his career. Maybe not a bad idea, but it contributed to most of his INTs. Rodgers is too smart for that.

IMO, the Favre vs Rodgers conversation is moot. Favre hasn't done what Rodgers has in a SB/playoffs...

Starr <> Rodgers >>>>>>>> Favre

Agree with pretty much all of that, especially the bold. Favre threw the ball hard but Rodgers has some Bruce Lee shit going on with his throws. His actual arm wind up and delivery is amazingly fast but what always strikes me is how quickly he can use his whole body to load that arm.

[mission]

Agree with pretty much all of that, especially the bold. Favre threw the ball hard but Rodgers has some Bruce Lee shit going on with his throws. His actual arm wind up and delivery is amazingly fast but what always strikes me is how quickly he can use his whole body to load that arm.

Yep, the mechanics are very different. Favre would almost wind up on some of those throws so hard that it added to the effect factor. Rodgers mechanics are so tight and so quick that it allows him to get the ball into tiny windows on a rope; also explains his passing efficiency on the run. Looks effortless, coaching video stuff. He might never have the reputation of having a stronger arm than Favre but that will just be media talk. The dude has a laser!

[Bossman641]

I could not agree with this more. Three weeks ago, he was taking Matt Ryan over Rodgers.

Rodgers put Cowherd in his place the other day.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ3jdP7q1FU&feature=player_embedded#

[The Shadow]

A strong arm + accuracy + GOOD DECISION-MAKING is a hard combo to beat!

[King Friday]

3. Favre : Super Bowl record - 1-1. In my opinion, Favre's single championship came only when Ron Wolf had assembled a team around him clearly, talent-wise, superior in the NFL. He also failed to win the next year with the same basic talent against a decided underdog.


Ron Wolf didn't assemble much of a supporting cast around Favre offensively. Jordy Nelson is better than any receiver Favre had in Green Bay during his MVP era...and he's Rodgers' #3/#4 receiver. That offense would've been among the league's worst with any mere mortal under center. Favre MADE receivers like Freeman and Schroeder look like Pro Bowlers...when in fact they would've been no better than #2/#3 receivers elsewhere, which they quickly found out when they left town. I pin the blame for the SB32 loss more on the defense.

That said, I'm damn glad we have Rodgers...who IMO is the 2nd best QB in the league to Brady right now. Manning's lack of mobility is a major hindrance that knocks him down a notch IMO. Brees doesn't have the accuracy Rodgers has. Rodgers will have the Packers knocking on the door every year for the next 8+ years. He's that good.

[MJZiggy]

I don't think ANYONE could have made Schroeder look like a pro bowler...Maybe God, but Jesus would have had trouble with it.

[Joemailman]

Ron Wolf didn't assemble much of a supporting cast around Favre offensively. Jordy Nelson is better than any receiver Favre had in Green Bay during his MVP era...and he's Rodgers' #3/#4 receiver. That offense would've been among the league's worst with any mere mortal under center. Favre MADE receivers like Freeman and Schroeder look like Pro Bowlers...when in fact they would've been no better than #2/#3 receivers elsewhere, which they quickly found out when they left town. I pin the blame for the SB32 loss more on the defense.

That said, I'm damn glad we have Rodgers...who IMO is the 2nd best QB in the league to Brady right now. Manning's lack of mobility is a major hindrance that knocks him down a notch IMO. Brees doesn't have the accuracy Rodgers has. Rodgers will have the Packers knocking on the door every year for the next 8+ years. He's that good.

Your overall point that Favre did not have great WR's is correct. Ron Wolf has said he wishes he had gotten Favre better receivers. However, Jordy Nelson was not a better receiver than Robert Brooks, and probably not better than Freeman, although time will tell on that one.

[RashanGary]

Favre was a big time regular season stat collector. Rodgers seems like more of a champion. Montana, Starr, Aikman, Brady. . . He has more of that championship game where Favre has more of that Cutler style with the big numbers while losing big games.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Let's not forget that Favre had some great TEs in Chmura and Jackson. He also had a couple of excellent receiving RBs in Bennett and Levens. Favre had really good talent around him in the 2000s. Driver, Walker, and Jennings were all studs. Ahman Green was one of the best RBs in football. For a couple of years the Packers also had the best or one of the best OLs in the NFL.

[HarveyWallbangers]

There's no way Jordy is better than Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, and Antonio Freeman. He actually is probably comparable in a lot of ways to Schroeder.

[pbmax]

How about Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett as targets compared to Grant and Jackson?

Brooks WAS Greg Jennings prior to the knee injury. Freeman when young was as good as Driver.

How about a better running game?

Only Finley is truly different and even he could be compared to Jackson.

[LEWCWA]

Favre was a big time regular season stat collector. Rodgers seems like more of a champion. Montana, Starr, Aikman, Brady. . . He has more of that championship game where Favre has more of that Cutler style with the big numbers while losing big games.

This makes very little sense to me. I never thought of Favre that way. frustrating yes, stat collector not so much. At least until he left GB!

[LEWCWA]

Let's not forget that Favre had some great TEs in Chmura and Jackson. He also had a couple of excellent receiving RBs in Bennett and Levens. Favre had really good talent around him in the 2000s. Driver, Walker, and Jennings were all studs. Ahman Green was one of the best RBs in football. For a couple of years the Packers also had the best or one of the best OLs in the NFL.

I think the 2002 team was ready to win it all and the wheels got shot off that team at the end of the season. Just goes to show how you have to be good, plus have things fall your way to win the big one. GB is primed for some runs at this again, but we have all seen that it doesn't always work out. Football is a fickle game....

[vince]

Aaron Rodgers IS the most complete Packer QB ever. He may well be the most complete QB ever. Montana didn't have the arm Rodgers has. Young maybe beats him but Rodgers has a stronger arm than he had too I'd say.

He's far more physically gifted than Starr and we all know about the shortcomings of Favre in terms of his discipline - on and off the field.

Hopefully he can stay healthy and play for 10 more years because he's everything you could want in a QB plus a couple concussions.

It's funny now that people questioned his clutchness. His post-season numbers are unbelievable - much better than his regular season production, which is among the best ever.

[Fritz]

Let's not forget that Favre had some great TEs in Chmura and Jackson. He also had a couple of excellent receiving RBs in Bennett and Levens. Favre had really good talent around him in the 2000s. Driver, Walker, and Jennings were all studs. Ahman Green was one of the best RBs in football. For a couple of years the Packers also had the best or one of the best OLs in the NFL.


Thank you, Harv. I hope this forestalls any arguments about poor Brent not having a good enough supporting cast. And I would argue that before Brooks got hurt, he was a superb wide receiver - it's one of the great shames of Packer history that the poor guy got hurt during the SB year. He had fine hands, good moves, ran disciplined routes, and apparently was a quiet, humble guy on top of it. Perhaps defensively the Packers did not have the team one would've liked - I will grant that. But they did have some good defenses out there for several years, anyway. And, as someone else pointed out, Favre probably had as strong a supporting cast as any QB in the NFL with Minnesota two years ago.

On the other hand, I don't want to pretend Favre wasn't a superb QB. He was. But oh my god, he was maddening. I always used to think, back in the mid-90's, that Brent would get better and better as he matured and started to make better decisions. But he never did.

[swede]

I always used to think, back in the mid-90's, that Brent would get better and better as he matured and started to make better decisions. But he never did.

To which Deanna says, welcome to my world.

[King Friday]

Your overall point that Favre did not have great WR's is correct. Ron Wolf has said he wishes he had gotten Favre better receivers. However, Jordy Nelson was not a better receiver than Robert Brooks, and probably not better than Freeman, although time will tell on that one.

Yeah...I could perhaps give you Robert Brooks as being better than Nelson. It's at least debatable. If Nelson just catches a couple of those tosses he dropped, he could've had 11-12 catches for 200+ yards in the Super Bowl...with a busted bursa sac in the 4th quarter. Those are epic numbers. Nelson's postseason production was every bit as much of a breakout as Rodgers' IMO. The main issue with Brooks was that the guy couldn't stay healthy, which always factors in for me. He had one monster season (when he stayed healthy) but didn't have more than 60 catches any other year. If a guy can't stay on the field, I have to consider that in a comparison even if he was more talented than someone else who was more reliable.

Freeman? Nah. Freeman never impressed me. The guy made a living off the fact that Favre could throw a laser beam between 3 defenders..which was often necessary because Freeman had trouble getting separation. He put up big numbers because there wasn't much else for Favre to throw to in the late 90s. Despite playing with Favre in his prime...a lot of it as the #1 WR...he only managed to exceed 75 catches twice and 1000 yards thrice. Respectable numbers...but as the #1 option in Favre's MVP years I would expect a truly great WR to do better. Driver has been able to do that consistently even as a #2 option behind Walker and Jennings.

[King Friday]

I always used to think, back in the mid-90's, that Brent would get better and better as he matured and started to make better decisions. But he never did.

So true. I wonder how much had to do with Holmgren leaving. Favre's mental development seemed to nosedive once Holmgren departed.

The great thing is that I actually feel confident that Rodgers will only continue to improve...especially with McCarthy as coach. McCarthy is an excellent QB coach...the development of Flynn really confirms that for me.

[RashanGary]

I disagree with you on just about everything, friday. I'm with Harvey here. Favre had some damn good weapons too. That's one of the things a bunch of us were happy about when he left; the rest of the team would finally get credit. For so many years there were crowds of people just like you who said Favre made other players careers. It's just not the case. Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman, Rison, Chumura, Driver, Walker, Jennings, Rice, Ahman Green, Levens, Adrian Peterson, good-great OL's for his entire career except 2005-2007. . . . All of these guys were damn good football players. Let's not try to hype Favre up and credit him for other players careers. You're not going to find many here who buy that.

I would say it the opposite way. The one year Favre won the SB, it had dominant STs, dominant defense and a rock solid running game. McCarren said that 96 team was much stronger than this 2010 team. Anyone with a football sense would agree. That team was complete. Rodgers did what Favre could never do and that's carry an offense on his back to win a SB, and without good ST's. What Rodgers accomplished this year, that was bigger than anything Brett Favre did in his entire career. I think AR is the better player even if he doesn't accumulate the regular season stats over as long of a career.

[channtheman]

I disagree with you on just about everything, friday. I'm with Harvey here. Favre had some damn good weapons too. That's one of the things a bunch of us were happy about when he left; the rest of the team would finally get credit. For so many years there were crowds of people just like you who said Favre made other players careers. It's just not the case. Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman, Rison, Chumura, Driver, Walker, Jennings, Rice, Ahman Green, Levens, Adrian Peterson, good-great OL's for his entire career except 2005-2007. . . . All of these guys were damn good football players. Let's not try to hype Favre up and credit him for other players careers. You're not going to find many here who buy that.

I would say it the opposite way. The one year Favre won the SB, it had dominant STs, dominant defense and a rock solid running game. McCarren said that 96 team was much stronger than this 2010 team. Anyone with a football sense would agree. That team was complete. Rodgers did what Favre could never do and that's carry an offense on his back to win a SB, and without good ST's. What Rodgers accomplished this year, that was bigger than anything Brett Favre did in his entire career. I think AR is the better player even if he doesn't accumulate the regular season stats over as long of a career.

Favre didn't even play particularly well the entire post season the Packers won the Super Bowl. My dad and I rewatched his old taped playoff games a few weeks ago and Favre was downright awful in some of the games.

[Bretsky]

There's no way Jordy is better than Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, and Antonio Freeman. He actually is probably comparable in a lot of ways to Schroeder.

You must think of lot more of Schroeder than I do. I thought he was closer to Swain than a starting caliber WR. Marginal #3 at best IMO Agree Jordy is not better than the other three.

[woodbuck27]

The complete package in terms of intelligence, arm strength and accuracy.

YES !

GO Aaron Rogders !

GO PACKERS in 2011

[woodbuck27]

I disagree with you on just about everything, friday. I'm with Harvey here. Favre had some damn good weapons too. That's one of the things a bunch of us were happy about when he left; the rest of the team would finally get credit. For so many years there were crowds of people just like you who said Favre made other players careers. It's just not the case. Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman, Rison, Chumura, Driver, Walker, Jennings, Rice, Ahman Green, Levens, Adrian Peterson, good-great OL's for his entire career except 2005-2007. . . . All of these guys were damn good football players. Let's not try to hype Favre up and credit him for other players careers. You're not going to find many here who buy that.

I would say it the opposite way. The one year Favre won the SB, it had dominant STs, dominant defense and a rock solid running game. McCarren said that 96 team was much stronger than this 2010 team. Anyone with a football sense would agree. That team was complete. Rodgers did what Favre could never do and that's carry an offense on his back to win a SB, and without good ST's. What Rodgers accomplished this year, that was bigger than anything Brett Favre did in his entire career. I think AR is the better player even if he doesn't accumulate the regular season stats over as long of a career.

Solid post JH and accurate analysis.

Good points ...TRUTH.

GO PACKERS !

[Patler]

The "gunslinger" mentality is exciting, fun to watch and will occasionally result in a stunning, unbelievable win. It also results in heartbreaking losses. In the long run of a playoff march when teams are evenly matched, games are close and wins must be strung together, the stunning wins and heartbreaks tend to cancel themselves, and of course the heartbreaks lead to a playoff exit.

The cool, steady play of a tactician at QB is often less exciting, and seldom heart-breaking. The performance is usually not appreciated on a play-by-play basis, but collectively at the end of the game by the accumulation of plays.

It is easier to string together playoff wins with a tactician because of his steadiness and reliability. It is more difficult to string together playoff wins with a gunslinger because of his crippling mistakes and uneven play. You can scheme your offense for the play of a tactician because you know what he will do, you can not for the gunslinger because you are never sure what he will do in a given situation.

In the end, an ultimate gunslinger might win you a championship, but a tactical perfectionist can bring repeated championships. The Packers have seen the results of both with Starr as a tactical genius at QB and Favre as the ultimate gunslinger. It's too early to tell, but Rodgers looks like a unique combination of the two who can distinguish between the less risky plays and more risky plays recognized by the gunslinger, and complete the first while avoiding the second.

[Pugger]

Golly I hate that unctuous, oily, self-impressed loathsome jerk. I rarely can listen for more than a few minutes before I have to tune out, but I did hear him list all of the best young QB's--including AR--and then say that Ben Roethlisburger was the guy you would want to build a young winning team around.

Do you suppose he will rethink, recant, or backpedal?

If I had Skinbasket's way with words I would say very bad mean things about Colin Cowherd.

I'd also put Skip Clueless in with Cowherd. :-p

[gbgary]

you can't do it without weapons and bf was loaded (no pun intended) during his mvp years.

[mission]

Yeah...I could perhaps give you Robert Brooks as being better than Nelson. It's at least debatable. If Nelson just catches a couple of those tosses he dropped, he could've had 11-12 catches for 200+ yards in the Super Bowl...with a busted bursa sac in the 4th quarter. Those are epic numbers. Nelson's postseason production was every bit as much of a breakout as Rodgers' IMO. The main issue with Brooks was that the guy couldn't stay healthy, which always factors in for me. He had one monster season (when he stayed healthy) but didn't have more than 60 catches any other year. If a guy can't stay on the field, I have to consider that in a comparison even if he was more talented than someone else who was more reliable.

Freeman? Nah. Freeman never impressed me. The guy made a living off the fact that Favre could throw a laser beam between 3 defenders..which was often necessary because Freeman had trouble getting separation. He put up big numbers because there wasn't much else for Favre to throw to in the late 90s. Despite playing with Favre in his prime...a lot of it as the #1 WR...he only managed to exceed 75 catches twice and 1000 yards thrice. Respectable numbers...but as the #1 option in Favre's MVP years I would expect a truly great WR to do better. Driver has been able to do that consistently even as a #2 option behind Walker and Jennings.

I don't think Robert Brooks ever went against a team's #3 or #4 corner.

The numbers could have been "epic" but everything's skewed. We are a matchup-based offense, not as much of a traditional, lineup and beat the guy in front of you offense. Jordy didn't have those numbers because he was the absolute best WR on the field. He had those numbers because the difference in skill between him and the player he matched up against was the highest out of all matchups on the field - and MM was willing to exploit that.

That does speak a lot to Jordy's talent but it also says just as much about the CBs he was up against (and none of that was a secret leading up to XLV).

And saying Brooks was basically Jennings? Are you then saying that Jordy is better than Jennings?

Jennings made every play he needed to. Big time clutch at big time moments. Jordy's SB was a product of opportunity.

[pbmax]

I understand the criticism of Brooks career as short compared to Driver or Jennings and that Freeman was truly great for 2 or 3 seasons (I cannot see how you could fail to be impressed with his stretch starting from the 96 Super Bowl year through 1999).

But in your original argument, you asked about Favre's MVP years, so the short careers of his targets doesn't really come into play, do they?

In 1995, Brooks had an All-Pro year and the Packer offense was as lethal as it would get during the Holmgren era. Bennett and Levens combine for 100 catches and Chmura and Jackson total 67 for 8 TDs.

In 1996, I think the offense took a step back because of injuries and succeeded in scoring more because of fantastic defense and special teams. That team had more short fields to work with than any other outfit I have ever seen. Imagine the recent Super Bowl field position for an entire 19 games. Chmura and Jackson combine for 68 catches and 10 TDs. Freeman misses time with a broken arm and gets 56 catches for 9 TDs. Beebe goes for 39 and 18 yards a catch. Bennett/Levens/Henderson get 89 catches and 7 TDs. And then the pupu platter of Mickens/Rison/Mayes/Howard trying to replace Brooks who was at 23 catches for 15 yards a pop before injury.

In 1997, Freeman (81 and 12), Brooks (60 and 7 at 17 ypc), Levens/Henderson (94 and 6) and Chmura and Thomasen (47 and 7). There wasn't much of a third wideout as Beebe got hurt and Mickens and Mayes were eh.

All in all, not Rice and Taylor, but in 2 years he arguably had a Pro Bowl/All Pro at WR, TE and RB catching passes.

[gbgary]

AR is the best ever for Green Bay because he is:

Bart Starr with a better arm,
Lynn Dickey with better legs.
Brett Favre with a better head.




i think you're 100% correct there.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You must think of lot more of Schroeder than I do. I thought he was closer to Swain than a starting caliber WR. Marginal #3 at best IMO Agree Jordy is not better than the other three.

Schroeder was the favorite whipping boy to a lot of Packer fans, but he's better than most people remember. Unbelievable athleticism. Would run the wrong or poor routes at times, but was thrown under the bus by Favre ball washers too much.

Schroeder had a three year stretch where he caught 53 balls for 913 yards and 9 TDs, 65 balls for 999 yards and 5 TDs, and 74 balls for 1051 yards and 4 TDs as the #2 receiver behind Antonio Freeman.

[Patler]

Schroeder was the favorite whipping boy to a lot of Packer fans, but he's better than most people remember. Unbelievable athleticism. Would run the wrong or poor routes at times, but was thrown under the bus by Favre ball washers too much.

Schroeder had a three year stretch where he caught 53 balls for 913 yards and 9 TDs, 65 balls for 999 yards and 5 TDs, and 74 balls for 1051 yards and 4 TDs as the #2 receiver behind Antonio Freeman.

Schroeder's biggest problem was that he often flinched at contact. Short-armed passes and stopped on routes when a big hit was coming. Favre chewing him out and one of the coaches (Sherman?) grabbing his face mask to talk to him brought down the ire of the fans upon him. I always felt that he played as much as he did because for a few years the Packers really had no one else. He had good size and speed, but played smaller than he was. Green and Henderson were always among the top receivers, Green even lead the team in receptions a couple years when Schroeder was starting.

[King Friday]

I disagree with you on just about everything, friday. I'm with Harvey here. Favre had some damn good weapons too. That's one of the things a bunch of us were happy about when he left; the rest of the team would finally get credit. For so many years there were crowds of people just like you who said Favre made other players careers. It's just not the case. Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman, Rison, Chumura, Driver, Walker, Jennings, Rice, Ahman Green, Levens, Adrian Peterson, good-great OL's for his entire career except 2005-2007. . . . All of these guys were damn good football players. Let's not try to hype Favre up and credit him for other players careers. You're not going to find many here who buy that.

First, I was specifically speaking to the mid to late 90s Packers. Favre had some incredible talent around him in the Sherman years...but the defense was an awful mess. During his MVP seasons, the talent around Favre was less than what Rodgers has around him now. Favre was tossing to a bunch of nobodies in SB31. Rison wasn't wanted by anyone in the league until the Packers needed a body. Beebe was solid, but well past his prime. Freeman was a raw rookie with one good arm.

Second, I love Levens and Bennett...but their receiving ability had far more to do with Holmgren's dominance in playcalling. Go back and take a long hard look at the offensive production of many of the mid 90s players once Holmgren left. It went into the tank for many...Levens being one of them. It wasn't because he was used up...he remained in the league until 2004, and his only productive years after Green Bay were in Philly under the offensive direction of Holmgren disciple Andy Reid. Levens was an average RB...not exceptional fast or powerful...but made good decisions and could run a screen play with lethal timing and precision.


I would say it the opposite way. The one year Favre won the SB, it had dominant STs, dominant defense and a rock solid running game. McCarren said that 96 team was much stronger than this 2010 team. Anyone with a football sense would agree. That team was complete. Rodgers did what Favre could never do and that's carry an offense on his back to win a SB, and without good ST's. What Rodgers accomplished this year, that was bigger than anything Brett Favre did in his entire career. I think AR is the better player even if he doesn't accumulate the regular season stats over as long of a career.

Favre won the MVP in 1996...and rightfully so. Personally, I think you discredit Favre way too much by claiming that he couldn't carry an offense. That is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever read. He carried the Packer offense for years...he just also happened to also be the guy who caused the self inflicted gunshot as well. Just because he left on bad terms is no reason to selectively revise history. The guy won 3 straight league MVPs for a reason.

So our current Packer team is "not complete"? Again...a ludicrous comment. Our defense is excellent...especially when you consider the injuries we sustained and how the level of play was not impacted all that greatly. Our defense is one of the best in the league. Our defense helped win SB45 with 3 turnovers...every bit as much a contribution as what Rodgers did. Our defense also came up with numerous huge plays to seal victories against Philly, Atlanta and Chicago in the playoffs. Sorry bud...but the notion that Aaron Rodgers is the only reason this team won is ridiculous. This was a complete team effort. Any SB title is.

[King Friday]

Schroeder was the favorite whipping boy to a lot of Packer fans, but he's better than most people remember. Unbelievable athleticism. Would run the wrong or poor routes at times, but was thrown under the bus by Favre ball washers too much.

Schroeder had a three year stretch where he caught 53 balls for 913 yards and 9 TDs, 65 balls for 999 yards and 5 TDs, and 74 balls for 1051 yards and 4 TDs as the #2 receiver behind Antonio Freeman.

I think many of you truly forget just how impressive Favre was under Holmgren in the mid 90s. He was a fucking beast. He was a complete jackass on his way out the door...yeah, I get it. That doesn't change the fact that Favre MADE the career of several of his offensive players...and Schroeder is probably exhibit A. Schroeder would be a distant #5 WR on this team.

The pissing on Favre needs to stop people. He will ALWAYS be one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game. He's gone now...and we have a new guy who potentially can be even better. Why sit here and try to build up Bill Schroeder as evidence for why Favre sucks?

[Patler]

Second, I love Levens and Bennett...but their receiving ability had far more to do with Holmgren's dominance in playcalling. Go back and take a long hard look at the offensive production of many of the mid 90s players once Holmgren left. It went into the tank for many...Levens being one of them. It wasn't because he was used up...he remained in the league until 2004, and his only productive years after Green Bay were in Philly under the offensive direction of Holmgren disciple Andy Reid. Levens was an average RB...not exceptional fast or powerful...but made good decisions and could run a screen play with lethal timing and precision.

Yes. Levens was basically used up by the time he left. He spent 8 years in Green Bay and was 32 years old when he left. Not many running backs are not used up by then.

Favre had different weapons than Rodgers, better at some positions and not as good at others. Favre had much better running back receivers with Bennett, Levens and Green, and a much better fullback receiver in Henderson than Rodgers has had. Favre had better tight ends, because Finley, while good, really hasn't contributed much in three years. He did nothing as a rookie, emerged last year, but missed some games, and had a very abbreviated year this year. Lee and Quarless don't hold a candle to Chmura, Jackson, etc. Bubba Franks had a few years in which he was a TD machine. A huge body who was always open short. Rodgers has the advantage at WR, but Favre usually had one good one, just not a lot of depth.

Overall both have good options available, just from different positions.

[Patler]

I think many of you truly forget just how impressive Favre was under Holmgren in the mid 90s. He was a fucking beast. He was a complete jackass on his way out the door...yeah, I get it. That doesn't change the fact that Favre MADE the career of several of his offensive players...and Schroeder is probably exhibit A. Schroeder would be a distant #5 WR on this team.

The pissing on Favre needs to stop people. He will ALWAYS be one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game. He's gone now...and we have a new guy who potentially can be even better. Why sit here and try to build up Bill Schroeder as evidence for why Favre sucks?

That is a total and unfounded discredit to the players Favre played with.

Who has argued that Favre sucked? Favre is and always has been much better than sucking, but not nearly the QB god that you seem to think he was.

I can very well argue that Favre was not nearly as great as you may remember. He did impressive physical things throwing the ball. But I have argued for years and years, from long before he left GB, that he was not a great QUARTERBACK, due to the other things in which he came up short.

[King Friday]

I understand the criticism of Brooks career as short compared to Driver or Jennings and that Freeman was truly great for 2 or 3 seasons (I cannot see how you could fail to be impressed with his stretch starting from the 96 Super Bowl year through 1999).

Freeman was good...but not great. He had the benefit of playing in Favre's prime, and the Packers didn't have too many great receiving options other than him. That's my point. If he was so great, he should've been putting up Sterling Sharpe numbers (another guy playing with Favre surrounded by no other receiving threats) but Freeman did not...not even close.


But in your original argument, you asked about Favre's MVP years, so the short careers of his targets doesn't really come into play, do they?

They do to this extent...postseason play means a lot to me. Robert Brooks never had a playoff game as good as Nelson's in SB45. Brooks scored 4 career postseason TDs. Jordy has 3 in only 4 games. Nelson had 22 receptions for 297 yards and 2 TDs this postseason. Few Packer receivers can claim that kind of statline for a single postseason. Sure, Brooks had great talent...but he was often injured and never was the factor in the postseason during his career than Jordy was this year. People can sit here and poo-poo Jordy's postseason all they want and make whatever excuses they want. Bottom line...Jordy came up just as big as Rodgers IMO.


In 1995, Brooks had an All-Pro year and the Packer offense was as lethal as it would get during the Holmgren era. Bennett and Levens combine for 100 catches and Chmura and Jackson total 67 for 8 TDs.

Yeah...they had a finely tuned machine put together by Holmgren. I was probably wrong to say they would've been worse in the league without Favre (and I was refering strictly to the 1996 offense that had been decimated by injury) but they would've been a lot worse. The screen game was so devastating because of the continual threat Favre posed downfield. and Holmgren milked that beautifully. Holmgren's playcalling was one of the main reason that offense could be so successful without a great OL. That OL was average...but the threats were so numerous due to Favre raw talent and Holmgren's offensive genius, it didn't matter. Defenses were always on their heels.


All in all, not Rice and Taylor, but in 2 years he arguably had a Pro Bowl/All Pro at WR, TE and RB catching passes.

Pro Bowl, perhaps. All-Pro? That's a stretch. Levens was a Pro Bowler once...never an All-Pro. Freeman was a Pro Bowler and All-Pro once (98). Chmura made 3 Pro Bowls, but was never an All-Pro. He had a great year in 1995 and lived off reputation after that by and large, and probably didn't have that much competition at the position either (TE then isn't what TE is now). Brooks and Bennett never were either.

Sorry pbmax...but the hardware isn't adding up to this "great" talent assembled around Favre in the mid-90s. The guy getting all the hardware was Favre...and deservedly so. That is why Favre's MVPs (and Holmgren's playcalling and coaching staff) are all the more impressive in my book. He did it with mostly glorified role players around him...coached up by a hell of a coaching staff and led by an uber-talented QB in his prime who caused each of them to believe good things could happen at any time.

[King Friday]

That is a total and unfounded discredit to the players Favre played with.

Sorry Patler. Freeman would not have been a Pro Bowl WR without Favre (he only made it once WITH Favre). Schroeder wouldn't have been a starting receiver without Favre. Yeah...Chmura was good, Brooks was good (when he could stay healthy), and Bennett and Levens were average RBs in terms of running but were phenominal receivers in the offense out of the backfield. I give them loads of credit on that...but the screen play's threat is greatest when defenses have to rush the QB, and Favre's brilliance during the Holmgren days is what created so many huge plays for our RBs on the edge.

You say Favre was not a great QB? How the hell do you win 3 straight league MVP awards and not be a great QB? Favre was indeed a great QB under Holmgren, who reigned him in as best he could and produced a player that dominated the league for the better part of 4 seasons.

Favre regressed into a pure gunslinger after Holmgren...which is where I would agree that he wasn't a great QB because of poor decision making in clutch situations. But to claim he was never a great QB is utterly ridiculous, especially when you look at the stats he produced from 94-98. Most QBs with that kind of production over a period of time have another HOF caliber player to work with. Favre did not.

[Patler]

Why are Favre's receivers good only because Favre made them good, but Jordy Nelson is great on his own merit? Maybe Rodgers made him great this playoff season? Truth be told, I think he did. Some of the throws Rodgers made were unbelievably accurate. Favre never threw deep balls as accurately as Rodgers has. On the other hand, Favre was laser accurate on the mid range stuff in the middle.

In the '90s Favre's O-line wasn't great, but I don't think the one Rodgers has played behind is any better.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Nice. A Bill Schroeder video. Nice throw, but Schroeds got open with his speed (he was also 6'3" and could jump out of the gym).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lri3dDGLb0c

Sterling Sharpe takes issue with you saying Favre didn't have weapons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jewbuNRUv0M&playnext=1&list=PLAAD995D15CF66F16

So does Don Beebe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8NuzMTBLo&feature=related

And Robert Brooks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6765-GKyW0Y&feature=related

And Antonio Freeman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_dQrqiFIKI

And Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xqV4IEJX1I

And Donald Driver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dXTZCgL7c&feature=related

And Javon Walker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7AaqnBd4oE

And Greg Jennings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38PP6Lwfnis

Ahman says I could run for 98 yard TDs like this and catch 70 balls in a season:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7fyBZvg7cI

[Patler]

Sorry Patler. Freeman would not have been a Pro Bowl WR without Favre (he only made it once WITH Favre). Schroeder wouldn't have been a starting receiver without Favre. Yeah...Chmura was good, Brooks was good (when he could stay healthy), and Bennett and Levens were average RBs in terms of running but were phenominal receivers in the offense out of the backfield. I give them loads of credit on that...but the screen play's threat is greatest when defenses have to rush the QB, and Favre's brilliance during the Holmgren days is what created so many huge plays for our RBs on the edge.

You say Favre was not a great QB? How the hell do you win 3 straight league MVP awards and not be a great QB? Favre was indeed a great QB under Holmgren, who reigned him in as best he could and produced a player that dominated the league for the better part of 4 seasons.

Favre regressed into a pure gunslinger after Holmgren...which is where I would agree that he wasn't a great QB because of poor decision making in clutch situations. But to claim he was never a great QB is utterly ridiculous, especially when you look at the stats he produced from 94-98. Most QBs with that kind of production over a period of time have another HOF caliber player to work with. Favre did not.

MVP awards are often popularity contests among the players on winning teams who had good years. As a matter of fact, wasn't it the second MVP (or the first) that was fairly controversial, and he shared the 3rd one, so its not like he was lights out better than anyone else those years.

But, you are arguing a few years, I am arguing a career. A great QB does not continue to make bone head plays with the frequency that Favre did after he has been in the league for 10 years. Favre was a tremendous throwing talent, but QB play is more than that. The simple fact is that the Packers many times were in positions in the playoffs to do something, and more often than not Favre threw it away. It's those situations, those few plays, that make a very good QB into a great one. In my opinion it is a very high standard and is much more than just stats, or beauty contest results.

Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr, Joe Montana to name a few were great QBs who played their best in the games that meant the most at the precise times their teams needed them the most, and very rarely pulled bonehead plays to cause defeats. I can't imagine any of them throwing the interception Favre threw for the Vikings in the playoffs, or the one Favre threw up for grabs against the Eagles for GB.

But, while I enjoyed watching Favre, I was never as enamored with his play as many were, even in the '90s. I kept hoping he would grow into the greatness that I thought he had the potential for, but he didn't.

What did Favre really accomplish after the two Super Bowl appearances, other than a lot of seasonal stats? He won games but played in a division that during the Sherman years had no other team with a winning record cumulatively. Those should have been the prime years of his career,

[Freak Out]

Lynn Dickey will always be my favorite GB QB. Most complete....? No.

[HarveyWallbangers]

And don't forget the guy who caught Favre's first ball. He was a good player too. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3RQ1LXi4w&feature=related

[HarveyWallbangers]

MVP awards are often popularity contests among the players on winning teams who had good years. As a matter of fact, wasn't it the second MVP (or the first) that was fairly controversial, and he shared the 3rd one, so its not like he was lights out better than anyone else those years.

I think his first two were legit. His third one was kind of a joke. He didn't even compete 60% of his passes and he threw 16 interceptions--yet tied Barry Sanders for the award. Sanders ran for 2,053 yards that year.

[Patler]

You say Favre was not a great QB? How the hell do you win 3 straight league MVP awards and not be a great QB? Favre was indeed a great QB under Holmgren, who reigned him in as best he could and produced a player that dominated the league for the better part of 4 seasons.

That is where your argument fails. A truly GREAT QB doesn't have to be reigned in. A truly GREAT QB is given his head and allowed to run. If the coach has to control him to prevent him from screwing up, the QB is a tremendous talent, but not a great QB.

[Patler]

I think his first two were legit. His third one was kind of a joke. He didn't even compete 60% of his passes and he threw 16 interceptions--yet tied Barry Sanders for the award. Sanders ran for 2,053 yards that year.

You might be right, its so long ago now its almost hard to believe!

[vince]

Freeman was a raw rookie with one good arm.
Favre did have a tendency to throw his guys into trouble.


http://vimeo.com/19128791

[RashanGary]

First, I was specifically speaking to the mid to late 90s Packers. Favre had some incredible talent around him in the Sherman years...but the defense was an awful mess. During his MVP seasons, the talent around Favre was less than what Rodgers has around him now. Favre was tossing to a bunch of nobodies in SB31. Rison wasn't wanted by anyone in the league until the Packers needed a body. Beebe was solid, but well past his prime. Freeman was a raw rookie with one good arm.

Second, I love Levens and Bennett...but their receiving ability had far more to do with Holmgren's dominance in playcalling. Go back and take a long hard look at the offensive production of many of the mid 90s players once Holmgren left. It went into the tank for many...Levens being one of them. It wasn't because he was used up...he remained in the league until 2004, and his only productive years after Green Bay were in Philly under the offensive direction of Holmgren disciple Andy Reid. Levens was an average RB...not exceptional fast or powerful...but made good decisions and could run a screen play with lethal timing and precision.



Favre won the MVP in 1996...and rightfully so. Personally, I think you discredit Favre way too much by claiming that he couldn't carry an offense. That is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever read. He carried the Packer offense for years...he just also happened to also be the guy who caused the self inflicted gunshot as well. Just because he left on bad terms is no reason to selectively revise history. The guy won 3 straight league MVPs for a reason.

So our current Packer team is "not complete"? Again...a ludicrous comment. Our defense is excellent...especially when you consider the injuries we sustained and how the level of play was not impacted all that greatly. Our defense is one of the best in the league. Our defense helped win SB45 with 3 turnovers...every bit as much a contribution as what Rodgers did. Our defense also came up with numerous huge plays to seal victories against Philly, Atlanta and Chicago in the playoffs. Sorry bud...but the notion that Aaron Rodgers is the only reason this team won is ridiculous. This was a complete team effort. Any SB title is.

First you discredit me saying AR carried a team the way Brett couldn't by citing Brett's regular season MVP's, then you take credit from AR for carrying the team by siting defense (which was still not as good as 96 and conveniently leave out ST's which is laughable to even compare). But the most contradictory part of your whole post is how you conveniently leave out AR's SB MVP after just using Favre's regular season ones. You are cherry picking bits and pieces to prove something you refuse to let go of. The guy was not as good as the hero stake you have in him.

AR is doing more in the post season than Brett ever did. Brett was a regular season stat collector, a risky player that got the attention of fans. He played for a long time and stayed healthy for a long time so he has some records. The only types of teams he could win a SB with would be the 85 Bears and the early 2000's Buccaneers and Ravens, oh, and the most complete and underrated team of the last 20 years, the 96 Packers. AR can carry an offense through the playoffs to championship(S).

[RashanGary]

I think many of you truly forget just how impressive Favre was under Holmgren in the mid 90s. He was a fucking beast. He was a complete jackass on his way out the door...yeah, I get it. That doesn't change the fact that Favre MADE the career of several of his offensive players...and Schroeder is probably exhibit A. Schroeder would be a distant #5 WR on this team.

The pissing on Favre needs to stop people. He will ALWAYS be one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game. He's gone now...and we have a new guy who potentially can be even better. Why sit here and try to build up Bill Schroeder as evidence for why Favre sucks?

Well, you're certainly carrying on the drama well like your hero does. Quit citing the one or two years out of twenty that Favre had really shitty weapons. For the most part, in his long career, he's had excellent weapons.

And Bill Shroeder left the Packers, a 30 year old WR, to a new offense and in his first year put up 65% of the numbers he put up with the Packers and that's with a nobody QB. Even your #1 point sort of sucks. Deal with it.

[pbmax]

Well as for Freeman, Ron Wolf apparently thought more of him than you as he gave him then what was (if memory serves) a top five contract for a WR either the last year we are discussing or the following year. So Mr. Wolf thought he was pretty good. And arguing that one receiver was made by the QB and another wasn't is not very convincing without a lot of data. Neither Freeman nor Nelson have been with other pro QBs in their primes.

As for playoffs being a determining factor, there is nothing to suggest that such a small sample size is indicative of the larger career. The sample is neither random nor representative. Brooks was missing for one entire playoff run. And Nelson in the Super Bowl benefited from being option 3. Just as the TEs and RBs in 95, 96 and 97 benefited from playing with Brooks and Free. Nelson also carries some warts, as according to McGinn, he lead the team in drop rate.

Lastly, Freeman hurt his arm in his second season. His rookie year was 95.

[Fritz]

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

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

AMAZING POST!!!!!!!!!

[Smeefers]

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

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

[vince]

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

[Smeefers]

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

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list%3A_Top_10_NFL_quarterb acks.html

[Patler]

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

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list%3A_Top_10_NFL_quarterb acks.html

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

[gbgary]

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

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

[bobblehead]

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

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list%3A_Top_10_NFL_quarterb acks.html

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

[Patler]

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

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

[Freak Out]

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

[Freak Out]

Can you imagine Rodgers with a good running game?

[gbgary]

Can you imagine Rodgers with a good running game?

his passing stats would go down.

[HarveyWallbangers]

his passing stats would go down.

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

[Smeefers]

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

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

[denverYooper]

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

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

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

[HarveyWallbangers]

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gbgary]

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

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

[Cheesehead Craig]

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

[gbgary]

Rodgers has better WRs.


AR's wrs aren't any better than bf's during his mvp years. sharp, brooks, freeman, chmura, jackson, rison, levens, bennett, etc.

good discussion about the qbs in this thread though.

[vince]

newsome
The 90s were a blur, but who's he?

[gbgary]

The 90s were a blur, but who's he?

lol...i meant freeman. dammit it. lol

[RashanGary]

Bo Jackson never had a 1,000 yard NFL season. He was always injured. When he was healthy though, there are people who say he was the best player in the NFL and a better RB than Emmit Smith turned out to be.

Jackson bounced between baseball and football and was ultimately lost to injury. Emmit Smith had amazing durability, played for a really consistent team and put up monsterous numbers. Emmit was a great player and deserves all of those accolades, but when people say Bo Jackson was the better RB, if he was better on the field then he was better on the field regardless of who played longer, racked up more stats and avoided more injury. That's something completely different.

Favre's legacy is bigger. Favre lasted longer. Rodgers is better.

[Fritz]

"Favre's legacy is bigger."

Let's ask Jenn Sterger about that.

[rbaloha1]

Expect A-rod to win 3-5 super bowls. While never matching Favre's amazing stats, A-rod's future potential post season success vaults him over BF and Starr.

[Freak Out]

Expect A-rod to win 3-5 super bowls. While never matching Favre's amazing stats, A-rod's future potential post season success vaults him over BF and Starr.

Glass half full....well....glass overflowing! :) Greatest QB ever then.

[rbaloha1]

Glass half full....well....glass overflowing! :) Greatest QB ever then.

Study the roster -- second youngest roster with the best players signed -- let the dynasty begin!

[Freak Out]

Study the roster -- second youngest roster with the best players signed -- let the dynasty begin!

Don't get me wrong man.....I'm loving this time and am bullish on the Pack to be serious contenders for...who knows? Lots of things can happen on the way to the forum. Enjoy it....worry about a dynasty after they win another SB. You know it's not easy......but this team is looking set for a run.........

[mission]

Don't get me wrong man.....I'm loving this time and am bullish on the Pack to be serious contenders for...who knows? Lots of things can happen on the way to the forum. Enjoy it....worry about a dynasty after they win another SB. You know it's not easy......but this team is looking set for a run.........

No one's ever going to worry about a dynasty. We're excited about having a good chance at winning another one and I don't want to wait a year (or two) to enjoy dreaming about it.

It's the player's jobs to be focused on winning. I'm just along for the ride. :)

[The Shadow]

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

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

Wise words.
Until somebody measures up to Starr, he remains the king of Packer quarterbacks.

[The Shadow]

A large part of the problem was this : Favre always gave you a chance to win - even against better teams, BUT : he always gave you a chance to lose - even against poor teams.

[Cheesehead Craig]

AR's wrs aren't any better than bf's during his mvp years. sharp, brooks, freeman, chmura, jackson, rison, levens, bennett, etc.

good discussion about the qbs in this thread though.
I suppose I should have said that the teams under Favre's years had their strength in the RB and TEs where Rodgers' is in the WRs as far as the passing game goes. That would have been consistent with the premise that you can't compare the athletes between now and then as they have improved so much.

[King Friday]

Wise words.
Until somebody measures up to Starr, he remains the king of Packer quarterbacks.

Tough to measure up current guys to Starr when #15 played in a league with a dozen teams.

A lot easier to win titles then than it is now. IMO, 3 SB wins in today's free agency era is just as impressive as what the 60's Packers accomplished. The NFC has sent 10 different teams to the Super Bowl in 10 years. That is a remarkable statistic in a 16 team conference. Parity really does reign.