LeRoy: Brett Better Than Aaron

[pbmax]

LeRoy Butler goes there on national radio. This coverage is exactly the opposite of winning the offseason. I wonder of Driver asked him to say it.

JoeDRobinson4 Joe Robinson
Surprised to hear LeRoy Butler on @MikeAndMike this morning say "make no mistake about it-Brett Favre was a better QB than Aaron Rodgers."
33 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Can't find an audio link. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/show?showId=mikeandmike

[swede]

Also, Emmit Smith is a better analyst than LeRoi Butler.

[Tarlam!]

I stopped reading that link when they had Brees/Eli Manning ahead of Rodgers. Fuck me. I know I'm a homer, but Rodgers is having a monster season. Any QB rating with Eli higher than Rodgers a

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:forums.corvetteforum.com/get/images/smilies/trainwreck.gif

[MJZiggy]

Between this and the Giants guaranteeing a win, Rodgers must be ready to kill anything in a blue shirt right now.

[mmmdk]

Not impressed by the timing of this assumption by Bertler; to be a whole QB is more than gunslinging and being an ironman. Forinstance, imagine Rodgers giving Flynn the treatment Bert gave Rodgers. Bert was a very, very rich mans Billy Joe Tolliver - those kind of QBs shouldn't even be winning SBs. They need help and Bert had a boatload of help compared to Rodgers.

Rodgers>>>Bert - yet Bert is still a fringe top 15 QB All time. Rodgers will be top 10 for sure when his career is over sans major injuries. Packers have been QB blessed.

[pbmax]

I stopped reading that link when they had Brees/Eli Manning ahead of Rodgers. Fuck me. I know I'm a homer, but Rodgers is having a monster season. Any QB rating with Eli higher than Rodgers a

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:forums.corvetteforum.com/get/images/smilies/trainwreck.gif

Love the gif, but I think those picks are about a specific result, as in, who will have the best passer rating after this weekend's games, etc. Didn't hear the segment, but I can't imagine them picking Manning over Brees for any other reason. Its seems to follow defensive matchups as Brady had little trouble with the Broncos the first time, Rodgers faces a resurgent Giants D and Manning gets the Packers D.

[Tarlam!]

Not impressed by the timing of this assumption by Bertler

Now that's funny shit right there, Michael!


Love the gif,

Stolen with pride from Gary's source

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/misc.php?do=getsmilies&editorid=vB_Editor_001

[pbmax]

Also, Emmit Smith is a better analyst than LeRoi Butler.

The sad thing is I liked listening to Emmit, malapropisms and all. He seemed honest and genuine, if often uninformed. Made it entertaining and he took his critiques to heart. :lol:

He would make a great sidekick/regular guest somewhere and that's no crack about his height.

[Joemailman]

Not impressed by the timing of this assumption by Bertler; to be a whole QB is more than gunslinging and being an ironman. Forinstance, imagine Rodgers giving Flynn the treatment Bert gave Rodgers. Bert was a very, very rich mans Billy Joe Tolliver - those kind of QBs shouldn't even be winning SBs. They need help and Bert had a boatload of help compared to Rodgers.

Rodgers>>>Bert - yet Bert is still a fringe top 15 QB All time. Rodgers will be top 10 for sure when his career is over sans major injuries. Packers have been QB blessed.

It's not that surprising that a guy who played with Favre during the prime of his career would rate Favre higher. Nor was it surprising the other day when Jennings ranked Rodgers higher. One of the great things about being a Packer fan is that we can even have this debate. On most teams either Favre or Rodgers would be unquestionably the best ever.

[mmmdk]

:lol: Thanx & Love the gif too, Tar!

Man, I'm ready and add furious to the notion. Bring on the G-Men and I shall convey all my energy to the Packers come sunday!

Let's roll! :pack:

[mmmdk]

It's not that surprising that a guy who played with Favre during the prime of his career would rate Favre higher. Nor was it surprising the other day when Jennings ranked Rodgers higher. One of the great things about being a Packer fan is that we can even have this debate. On most teams either Favre or Rodgers would be unquestionably the best ever.

I'm just feeding of off the stupidity of Bertler! :lol:

[ND72]

You also have to consider the fact that Butler and Favre are very good close friends. They often go golfing and fishing together. (Butler talked about it on a show earlier in the year).

[wist43]

Rodgers is the much better QB. Never thought I would say that... and I was very critical of Rodgers before he reinvented himself and his throwing motion - but right now, compared to Favre at the height of his career?? Rodgers is a much better QB.

[Upnorth]

Well I for one am glad Leroy settled the debate once and for all.

Seriously when will it end?

[gbgary]

I stopped reading that link when they had Brees/Eli Manning ahead of Rodgers. Fuck me. I know I'm a homer, but Rodgers is having a monster season. Any QB rating with Eli higher than Rodgers a

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:forums.corvetteforum.com/get/images/smilies/trainwreck.gif

fbf!

hehe...i see what you did there.

[Joemailman]

Well I for one am glad Leroy settled the debate once and for all.

Seriously when will it end?

Why would it end? I'm sure there are Bear fans who debate whether Sayers or Payton were better. Colts fans with Unitas and Manning.

[Pugger]

Well I for one am glad Leroy settled the debate once and for all.

Seriously when will it end?

When Rodgers wins another SB and 2 more MVPs.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Neither Butler nor Jennings opinions really matter much when comparing Favre vs Rodgers. Butler played with Favre in his prime and Jennings is playing with Rodgers in his. While Jennings did play with both Favre and Rodgers, he only played with Favre two seasons when he was 37-38 yo. Rodgers at 37-38 will not be as good as Rodgers now if he even plays that long. Our opinions as fans should actually be more valued than Butler or Jennings because we have been following the packers are whole lives and have watched both play. Butler and Jennings are going to be biased towards the QB they played with. Even Driver didn't come on until 99', the start of a two year period of transition and missing the playoffs. 99’, 00’, and 05’ were probably his worst seasons.

IMO Favre is still better than Rodgers as of right now. They both have one superbowl victory, but Favre played 20 years without missing a game and played at a high level almost every year. He has almost every major passing record and played during a time when it wasn’t a foul to tackle. The only way Rodgers passes Favre is to win more superbowls. He will never come close to his records, starting streak, and likeability among fans (07 and before). Winning championships to me holds more weight than anything else and that’s the one area that Favre does not have a big edge. One championship in 20 years is not very good considering he was in the playoffs about 12 times in his career. I understand he played on some bad teams in which he was the only bright spot, but his playoff performances after 97 for the most part sucked. If Rodgers wants to even make this a discussion he can't let opportunities to win titles (like this season for example) go to waste, because while we currently look like we will be good for a while, nothing is guaranteed.

So as of today, I would still put Favre ahead of Rodgers.

[Pugger]

Neither Butler nor Jennings opinions really matter much when comparing Favre vs Rodgers. Butler played with Favre in his prime and Jennings is playing with Rodgers in his. While Jennings did play with both Favre and Rodgers, he only played with Favre two seasons when he was 37-38 yo. Rodgers at 37-38 will not be as good as Rodgers now if he even plays that long. Our opinions as fans should actually be more valued than Butler or Jennings because we have been following the packers are whole lives and have watched both play. Butler and Jennings are going to be biased towards the QB they played with. Even Driver didn't come on until 99', the start of a two year period of transition and missing the playoffs. 99’, 00’, and 05’ were probably his worst seasons.

IMO Favre is still better than Rodgers as of right now. They both have one superbowl victory, but Favre played 20 years without missing a game and played at a high level almost every year. He has almost every major passing record and played during a time when it wasn’t a foul to tackle. The only way Rodgers passes Favre is to win more superbowls. He will never come close to his records, starting streak, and likeability among fans (07 and before). Winning championships to me holds more weight than anything else and that’s the one area that Favre does not have a big edge. One championship in 20 years is not very good considering he was in the playoffs about 12 times in his career. I understand he played on some bad teams in which he was the only bright spot, but his playoff performances after 97 for the most part sucked. If Rodgers wants to even make this a discussion he can't let opportunities to win titles (like this season for example) go to waste, because while we currently look like we will be good for a while, nothing is guaranteed.

So as of today, I would still put Favre ahead of Rodgers.

But I'd rather have Rodgers and his decisions in big games over Favre at any time in his career.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

But I'd rather have Rodgers and his decisions in big games over Favre at any time in his career.

That is what I'm hoping for as well.

Favre’s statistics in the playoffs through 97’ look like this: 3096 yards 23 tds 10 ints. 9-4 record, 2 superbowl appearances and one win superbowl win. You can't say he played bad up until this point can you? We have no idea if Rodgers will continue on and play like Montana in the postseason for the rest of his career or if you will fall off like Favre did. That’s why until Rodgers has more playoff success, ala more titles, Favre still has and will always have the edge.

[Old School]

I gave up on Butler and his analysis after about two episodes in the Mil Journal. Now the Journal thinks they're so good that people will pay to read it online. So I'm spared that as well.

[mraynrand]

Why would it end? I'm sure there are Bear fans who debate whether Sayers or Payton were better.


no way. They all know Sayers was better.

[Joemailman]

If Rodgers can lead the Packers to another Super Bowl win this year, in a year in which the Packers did not have an outstanding defense, it would be difficult to justify not rating him over Favre.

[denverYooper]

Love the gif, but I think those picks are about a specific result, as in, who will have the best passer rating after this weekend's games, etc. Didn't hear the segment, but I can't imagine them picking Manning over Brees for any other reason. Its seems to follow defensive matchups as Brady had little trouble with the Broncos the first time, Rodgers faces a resurgent Giants D and Manning gets the Packers D.

Ya. I heard it this morning. The matchup makes the difference.

[denverYooper]

It's not that surprising that a guy who played with Favre during the prime of his career would rate Favre higher. Nor was it surprising the other day when Jennings ranked Rodgers higher. One of the great things about being a Packer fan is that we can even have this debate. On most teams either Favre or Rodgers would be unquestionably the best ever.

He said as much, that Brett got him a ring. That was the extent of his analysis.

[SkinBasket]

There's a reason the organization wanted nothing to do with Butler after he retired and he kept skulking about the stadium begging for something to do. The guy's a retard. A talented retard, but definitely a retard. Christ, even Edgar Bennet could get a job with the team after his playing days were over.

[ND72]

I've really tried to stay out of the Favre/Rodgers battle. Very hard to compare the 2 IMO. I grew up loving Favre, and I pretty much love Rodgers as much as I once loved Favre. The biggest thing that is hard for some people is the fact the Favre was as much a "caricature" as he was an athlete for GB. He would do something in a game and people would laugh and fall more in love with him because he was just having fun and so on. Favre did some amazing things, no question, but there were many times he would make mistakes early in his career, but had an amazing defense that could make up for his mistakes. Later in his career that fact showed it's ugly face a lot. Granted he had some great years without a very good defense though. He also put up some crazy numbers without the type of talent Rodgers has right now. You can look and see Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, antonio Freeman, Donald Driver...but none of them really played together at the same time. Sterling was with Brooks, but Brooks wasn't really used...then Brooks took over, and Freeman was the lesser used, than Freeman took ove and Driver was the lesser used...GB has had a nice run of #1 recievers, but never had likely 4 #1 guys on the team at one time, PLUS a pretty good TE in Finley. I mean come on, Bill Schroeder led the team as a receiver one season. The Packers running game for many years early in Favre's career were screens and dump off passes.

Now on the flip side, Rodgers is a Quarterbacks Quarterback. I would assume Rodgers could develop into a very good coach some day given his attention to detail. If Rodgers didn't walk into a situation that had Driver and Jennings year 1, it could have been a bad start for him. but Thompson has loaded this team with weapons, and doesn't care if we have 6 WR's to compete for 5 spots as long as the best 5 make it...at any position. I love Rodgers, we have to credit some of his success to the talent that's been placed around him. BUT...I don't think Brett Favre could have made some of the throws that Aaron Rodgers has made in the past year. He's been fun to watch, and I hope we can get some OL talent around him to keep him upright for many years. How many teams can say they had 2 HOF QB's play back to back and it lasted potentially 30 years? Bear fans will hate us.

[Packers4Glory]

Not impressed by the timing of this assumption by Bertler; to be a whole QB is more than gunslinging and being an ironman. Forinstance, imagine Rodgers giving Flynn the treatment Bert gave Rodgers. Bert was a very, very rich mans Billy Joe Tolliver - those kind of QBs shouldn't even be winning SBs. They need help and Bert had a boatload of help compared to Rodgers.

Rodgers>>>Bert - yet Bert is still a fringe top 15 QB All time. Rodgers will be top 10 for sure when his career is over sans major injuries. Packers have been QB blessed.

say what? Favre never had offensive weapons like AR has...just say'n. lets be real. Farve had some good weapons, but he also made some crappy guys look really good, and never an offense like we have today.

[Packers4Glory]

Rodgers is the much better QB. Never thought I would say that... and I was very critical of Rodgers before he reinvented himself and his throwing motion - but right now, compared to Favre at the height of his career?? Rodgers is a much better QB.

geezus. I realize Favre pissed a lot of fans off, but come on man!

1. the lg has already changed a great deal from Favre's hey day. It's a much more pass oriented lg...not to mention all the rules recently put into place to help the QB and offenses.

2. Favre was an absolute stud in his prime. He did things NOBODY else could do back there.

3. AR is a much more calculated and safer QB. Right now AR is playing as good or better than Favre for a 20+ game stretch. But again, the lg is a lot different than it was, AR has a sick supporting cast, and its still a small sample size.

Lets see what happens this yr and for the next several before we crown AR as the better QB. It's waaaay to early to be making that call.

I love me some AR for many many reasons which include how awesomely he has handled the transition and having to follow a legend. Other than Montana and Young, there is no other story like AR's and what he's done. Nobody that I can recall has came into the lg unestablished and taken over for a HOF QB and done what AR has done. I love it. But its a little too early to convince me he's better than Favre. He's still got a ways to go before you can seriously have that discussion.



The ONE great thing about this is AR already has a chip on his shoulder and maybe this just adds to it. This just dumps more gas on his fire and desire to shut up everyone. So I'll thank Butler in advance.

[Fosco33]

Arodg should do an extra Lambeau Leap just for Butler...

[mraynrand]

He's still got a ways to go before you can seriously have that discussion.

all evidence to the contrary! :lol:

[mraynrand]

Collins is better than Butler :grin:

[Packers4Glory]

all evidence to the contrary! :lol:

yeah. I guess it is a what have you done for me lately world. Fave had a billion seasons here. A-rod's career is just entering his prime. I hope that he has a career that surpasses BF. That only benefits us fans if that happens because it means we will have a really fun and competitive team to watch for several seasons.

[mraynrand]

I was mostly suggesting that people are fully prepared to have the debate over who's better. I just hope it doesn't get nasty!

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is beating a dead horse, but IMHO Rodgers is better right now than Favre at his best. Supporting cast includes RBs, TEs, OL--along with WRs. Favre did have Sharpe, Brooks, Jackson, Chmura, Freeman, Driver, Walker, Ahman Green as an elite RB for a number of years, perhaps the best OL in football in the early to mid 2000s. The Pack went 15-1 (the best in team history)--despite below average RBs and OL and an average defense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I couldn't care less if he has the longevity that Favre had. He won't. I'll take a few more years of elite play and one or more Super Bowl victories. Would you take 5 more years of elite play out of Rodgers and another Super Bowl victory or 12 more years of near elite play with no title?

[Fritz]

If you gave me a choice of Favre or Rodgers, each in his prime, I'd take Rodgers every time. Whether for a whole season, or for one game, I'd take Rodgers.

Put them on opposite teams playing one another, with equal defenses and equal offensive talent at other positions, and Rodgers's team will win because Brent will make more mistakes.

[Smidgeon]

I've really tried to stay out of the Favre/Rodgers battle. Very hard to compare the 2 IMO. I grew up loving Favre, and I pretty much love Rodgers as much as I once loved Favre. The biggest thing that is hard for some people is the fact the Favre was as much a "caricature" as he was an athlete for GB. He would do something in a game and people would laugh and fall more in love with him because he was just having fun and so on. Favre did some amazing things, no question, but there were many times he would make mistakes early in his career, but had an amazing defense that could make up for his mistakes. Later in his career that fact showed it's ugly face a lot. Granted he had some great years without a very good defense though. He also put up some crazy numbers without the type of talent Rodgers has right now. You can look and see Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, antonio Freeman, Donald Driver...but none of them really played together at the same time. Sterling was with Brooks, but Brooks wasn't really used...then Brooks took over, and Freeman was the lesser used, than Freeman took ove and Driver was the lesser used...GB has had a nice run of #1 recievers, but never had likely 4 #1 guys on the team at one time, PLUS a pretty good TE in Finley. I mean come on, Bill Schroeder led the team as a receiver one season. The Packers running game for many years early in Favre's career were screens and dump off passes.

Now on the flip side, Rodgers is a Quarterbacks Quarterback. I would assume Rodgers could develop into a very good coach some day given his attention to detail. If Rodgers didn't walk into a situation that had Driver and Jennings year 1, it could have been a bad start for him. but Thompson has loaded this team with weapons, and doesn't care if we have 6 WR's to compete for 5 spots as long as the best 5 make it...at any position. I love Rodgers, we have to credit some of his success to the talent that's been placed around him. BUT...I don't think Brett Favre could have made some of the throws that Aaron Rodgers has made in the past year. He's been fun to watch, and I hope we can get some OL talent around him to keep him upright for many years. How many teams can say they had 2 HOF QB's play back to back and it lasted potentially 30 years? Bear fans will hate us.

Sounds to me like Favre was a little tunnel-visioned when it came to his receivers. I'm speculating because I didn't really become old enough to understand the game until a few years after the super bowl victory. Favre could make WRs because he focused on them. And when they were covered, he'd force the ball elsewhere.

That's just speculation on my part.

[Smidgeon]

say what? Favre never had offensive weapons like AR has...just say'n. lets be real. Farve had some good weapons, but he also made some crappy guys look really good, and never an offense like we have today.

Favre had Sterling Sharpe. And I'd take Sterling over every modern day WR the Packers have had--excepting maybe Lofton. While Jennings is Top 10, maybe Top 5 in the league this year and last, he's still got nothing on Sterling.

Plus, like someone else mentioned, he had Ahman Green. Pretty outstanding RB.

[mission]

I couldn't care less if he has the longevity that Favre had. He won't. I'll take a few more years of elite play and one or more Super Bowl victories. Would you take 5 more years of elite play out of Rodgers and another Super Bowl victory or 12 more years of near elite play with no title?

I'm with you. He doesn't even need more MVPs... give me another ring or two, kill it for the next 5-6 years and do what you want after you aren't the best.

Just needs a second ring and the conversation is over. Done. Finished.

[The Shadow]

If you gave me a choice of Favre or Rodgers, each in his prime, I'd take Rodgers every time. Whether for a whole season, or for one game, I'd take Rodgers.

Put them on opposite teams playing one another, with equal defenses and equal offensive talent at other positions, and Rodgers's team will win because Brent will make more mistakes.



Ditto!

[Freak Out]

If you gave me a choice of Favre or Rodgers, each in his prime, I'd take Rodgers every time. Whether for a whole season, or for one game, I'd take Rodgers.

Put them on opposite teams playing one another, with equal defenses and equal offensive talent at other positions, and Rodgers's team will win because Brent will make more mistakes.

Maybe.....Favre was a badass in his prime. We'll see how it goes for a few more years. Rodgers is just on fire though.....everything is pointing towards even more success.

[Tarlam!]

There's a reason the organization wanted nothing to do with Butler after he retired and he kept skulking about the stadium begging for something to do. The guy's a retard. A talented retard, but definitely a retard. Christ, even Edgar Bennet could get a job with the team after his playing days were over.

When the team allocated #36 to Collins, I read on JSO or the Gazette that it insulted Bertler. He honestly feels the club should retire his number apparently.

[Scott Campbell]

Hey Butler - shut the fuck up.

[King Friday]

I can't fault LeRoy here. When he played with Favre, he was a 3 time MVP...on an offense without the wall-to-wall talent that Rodgers is currently working with. Would Rodgers throw for all the yards and TDs if he was throwing to an aging Don Beebe and Andre Rison, as well as a rookie Antonio Freeman instead of Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Driver, Jones, Cobb, etc? I doubt it.

Rodgers has a chance to be more than Favre was...that is significant, because Favre is probably one of the ten best QBs of all-time. However, I can't say he's there yet...consistency and longevity speaks volumes in terms of a player's greatness. He has an incredible chance to place a huge milestone in his favor by winning a second ring and leading a team that only lost once during a season.

Personally, I choose to wait until Rodgers' career is at least 8-10 years long before I start making any real comparisons.

[Scott Campbell]

I can't fault LeRoy here.


I can't fault LeRoy for thinking it. But I can find plenty of fault for his crappy timing.

[Packers4Glory]

I can't fault LeRoy for thinking it. But I can find plenty of fault for his crappy timing.

wait..wut? crappy timing? have you not seen how AR responds, with his play, when things like this happen? I think the perceived slight from Favre prior to this season even started helped fuel AR's fire.

I'm glad he's throwing more gas on that fire in time for the Pack's first playoff game.

[Joemailman]

Maybe Leroy is just feeling sorry for Favre these days, because in June 2009, he said this:


leroy butler
I heard a rumor that Brett Favre signed with the Vikings - It doesn't matter because Aaron Rodgers is still the best QB in the division!
23 Jun 09 via web

[Scott Campbell]

wait..wut? crappy timing? have you not seen how AR responds, with his play, when things like this happen? I think the perceived slight from Favre prior to this season even started helped fuel AR's fire.

I'm glad he's throwing more gas on that fire in time for the Pack's first playoff game.


I seriously doubt Rodgers needs any more motivation for a playoff game. The guy already plays with a chip on his shoulder.

[Packers4Glory]

Favre had Sterling Sharpe. And I'd take Sterling over every modern day WR the Packers have had--excepting maybe Lofton. While Jennings is Top 10, maybe Top 5 in the league this year and last, he's still got nothing on Sterling.

Plus, like someone else mentioned, he had Ahman Green. Pretty outstanding RB.

He had some good weapons over the years...but never the talent that AR currently has as a whole. Not even close. As mentioned, Billy Schroeder led the team in receiving once. Favre had 1 or 2 good guys around him. AR has 5 really good WR and one of the more talented TE right now.

plus are you telling me that the game is really the same today as it was in the mid 90's? because QB's are owning the NFL at a rate never seen in its history. Favre's 2009 season is a perfect example of how the rules have really changed the game for the QB. Not many QB's have come out and had a season like he did for the Vikes that yr at that age. His best QB rating ever at the very end of his career? GTFO. A Favre playing in his prime today would be the best QB in football.

Favre statistically had a better 2009, at the end of his career, than AR had last yr or in 2009. In the 90's it was rare to see a QB finish w/ a 100 rating, much less the ratings guys are putting up today.

Its too bad Sharpe got hurt because he and Favre would have been unstoppable.

but nice try at grasping at straws. It would be nice to see some intelligence when it comes to Favre instead of irrational emotional BS revisionist thinking.

So far AR has stepped in and there has been absolutely zero drop off in the QB play we had grown accustomed to the previous 16 years. That's what really should be the focus as we sit here and witness AR write his own legacy.

It kinda pisses me off to see people want to start discounting the Favre era and using AR to rip on him. SO what Favre left. get over it nancy. its a business. shit happens. it doesn't change what he brought to this team when he was here. it was a different game then, and if you can't see that when you're doing your comparison then IDK what to tell ya.

[Brando19]

Maybe Leroy is just feeling sorry for Favre these days, because in June 2009, he said this:


leroy butler
I heard a rumor that Brett Favre signed with the Vikings - It doesn't matter because Aaron Rodgers is still the best QB in the division!
23 Jun 09 via web

Nice find, Joe! Maybe someone needs to bring this to Leroy's attention.

[Packers4Glory]

Nice find, Joe! Maybe someone needs to bring this to Leroy's attention. why is everyone here so dumb when it comes to Favre?

Is it not possible to think that Butler thought AR was the best QB in the division in 2009 when Favre was at the end of his career and AR was just coming into his own? Thats a far cry from being the best overall in his mind? yeah great find.....

[Smidgeon]

He had some good weapons over the years...but never the talent that AR currently has as a whole. Not even close. As mentioned, Billy Schroeder led the team in receiving once. Favre had 1 or 2 good guys around him. AR has 5 really good WR and one of the more talented TE right now.

plus are you telling me that the game is really the same today as it was in the mid 90's? because QB's are owning the NFL at a rate never seen in its history. Favre's 2009 season is a perfect example of how the rules have really changed the game for the QB. Not many QB's have come out and had a season like he did for the Vikes that yr at that age. His best QB rating ever at the very end of his career? GTFO. A Favre playing in his prime today would be the best QB in football.

Favre statistically had a better 2009, at the end of his career, than AR had last yr or in 2009. In the 90's it was rare to see a QB finish w/ a 100 rating, much less the ratings guys are putting up today.

Its too bad Sharpe got hurt because he and Favre would have been unstoppable.

but nice try at grasping at straws. It would be nice to see some intelligence when it comes to Favre instead of irrational emotional BS revisionist thinking.

So far AR has stepped in and there has been absolutely zero drop off in the QB play we had grown accustomed to the previous 16 years. That's what really should be the focus as we sit here and witness AR write his own legacy.

It kinda pisses me off to see people want to start discounting the Favre era and using AR to rip on him. SO what Favre left. get over it nancy. its a business. shit happens. it doesn't change what he brought to this team when he was here. it was a different game then, and if you can't see that when you're doing your comparison then IDK what to tell ya.

Listen, you said that Favre never had the talent Rodgers had. I'm not disagreeing with that on a whole.

But individually I still say that Sterling was more talented than anything the Packers have now. He led the league in receptions, receiving yards, receiving touchdowns several times and was in the Top 5 in 6 of his 7 years in the league. Sterling today would still be at or near the top of the league in all those categories. And that is all I was contesting. Favre wasn't bereft of talent either.

As for the bolded parts, you certainly seem to be making some assumptions about what I feel about the QBs. I haven't said one way or the other how I feel, so keep the editorializing to yourself.

[Pugger]

I've really tried to stay out of the Favre/Rodgers battle. Very hard to compare the 2 IMO. I grew up loving Favre, and I pretty much love Rodgers as much as I once loved Favre. The biggest thing that is hard for some people is the fact the Favre was as much a "caricature" as he was an athlete for GB. He would do something in a game and people would laugh and fall more in love with him because he was just having fun and so on. Favre did some amazing things, no question, but there were many times he would make mistakes early in his career, but had an amazing defense that could make up for his mistakes. Later in his career that fact showed it's ugly face a lot. Granted he had some great years without a very good defense though. He also put up some crazy numbers without the type of talent Rodgers has right now. You can look and see Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, antonio Freeman, Donald Driver...but none of them really played together at the same time. Sterling was with Brooks, but Brooks wasn't really used...then Brooks took over, and Freeman was the lesser used, than Freeman took ove and Driver was the lesser used...GB has had a nice run of #1 recievers, but never had likely 4 #1 guys on the team at one time, PLUS a pretty good TE in Finley. I mean come on, Bill Schroeder led the team as a receiver one season. The Packers running game for many years early in Favre's career were screens and dump off passes.

Now on the flip side, Rodgers is a Quarterbacks Quarterback. I would assume Rodgers could develop into a very good coach some day given his attention to detail. If Rodgers didn't walk into a situation that had Driver and Jennings year 1, it could have been a bad start for him. but Thompson has loaded this team with weapons, and doesn't care if we have 6 WR's to compete for 5 spots as long as the best 5 make it...at any position. I love Rodgers, we have to credit some of his success to the talent that's been placed around him. BUT...I don't think Brett Favre could have made some of the throws that Aaron Rodgers has made in the past year. He's been fun to watch, and I hope we can get some OL talent around him to keep him upright for many years. How many teams can say they had 2 HOF QB's play back to back and it lasted potentially 30 years? Bear fans will hate us.

I think they already do. :wink:

[Pugger]

If you gave me a choice of Favre or Rodgers, each in his prime, I'd take Rodgers every time. Whether for a whole season, or for one game, I'd take Rodgers.

Put them on opposite teams playing one another, with equal defenses and equal offensive talent at other positions, and Rodgers's team will win because Brent will make more mistakes.

This. Favre was great but he was too reckless with the ball, especially after Holmgren left.

[Patler]

There's a reason the organization wanted nothing to do with Butler after he retired and he kept skulking about the stadium begging for something to do. The guy's a retard. A talented retard, but definitely a retard. Christ, even Edgar Bennet could get a job with the team after his playing days were over.

Interesting point, because Butler openly and publicly campaigned for a coaching-type job for several years, and nothing came of it in GB or anywhere else.

Didn't he have a very short-lived PR type job with them? It seems to me they parted after just a couple months, with neither side saying much about it. Or am I thinking about the wrong former player?

[easy cheesy]

Who gives a fucking shit about what LeRoy Butler says about anything or anybody? JHC! Fuck him. He is irrelevant to the tasks/journey at hand. Bitter much LeRoy? All this "blah, blah, blah" going on... let's just win... how about that? GO PACK GO!!!

My Cat that's a Duck named Jaques already knows how to use the litter box but I may be able to hire a Butler as my official "scooper"....

Sidebar... this Favre VS Aaron shit is really tedious.... at best. Fuck Brat Fart... Go Aaron... Beat the "G" Men... Put Brees in his place... win another ring... DESTINY!!!!!

[easy cheesy]

... and LeRoy started the LL... how quickly we forget... I sure don't give a shit... "Leap over this asshole!".... hmmmm... I seem to be a bit crusty and combative tonight.... good for me.... time for nighty night... lolz

[Tarlam!]

leroy butler
I heard a rumor that Brett Favre signed with the Vikings - It doesn't matter because Aaron Rodgers is still the best QB in the division!
23 Jun 09 via web


Nice find, Joe! Maybe someone needs to bring this to Leroy's attention.


Is it not possible to think that Butler thought AR was the best QB in the division in 2009 when Favre was at the end of his career and AR was just coming into his own?

4Glory, I think you attacking posters wrt their ill views on Bert is a complete waste of time. By all means, go after the content; but calling people dumb takes away from your own content, which in this case, I agree with. It was my initial thought, too and if challenged, Bertler would probably say that.

In no way are the two comments contradictory.

[Kiwon]

Of course, both guys are great QBs, but this is one thing I think about - INTs and Fumbles (Lost and Not Lost)

Through first 69 games:

Favre - 68 INTs / 45 Fumbles
Rodgers - 38 INTs / 30 Fumbles

Favre obviously gave the other team a bunch of extra possessions. I certainly appreciate A-Rod when it comes to ball security.

[Little Whiskey]

That is what I'm hoping for as well.

Favre’s statistics in the playoffs through 97’ look like this: 3096 yards 23 tds 10 ints. 9-4 record, 2 superbowl appearances and one win superbowl win. You can't say he played bad up until this point can you? We have no idea if Rodgers will continue on and play like Montana in the postseason for the rest of his career or if you will fall off like Favre did. That’s why until Rodgers has more playoff success, ala more titles, Favre still has and will always have the edge.

Those first few playoff years before the superbowl year were pretty ugly losses to Dallas. I remember one year when Madden was blabbering about the crown of the field being to high in TX stadium that was throwing favre off. every one of his passes seemed high. but maybe he was "chinged up".

favre took more chances and made a lot of big plays by improvising. Rodgers is much more surgical like. Favre would make a play when something wasn't there. (this also lead to alot of his mistakes) whereas rodgers doesn't take that chance. he throws it away or dumps it off, (or takes a sack). he eliminates the mistakes.

the packers now have a game manager that can actually win you games. Its tough to remember the last game that Rodgers has cost the packers.

[Guiness]

I like the current crop of WR's as much as anyone, but calling them 4 #1 guys? LOL, You've been dipping into the Kool-aid a bit too deep ND72!

[Brandon494]

You guys crack me up but the answer is simple.

Rodgers is the better QB because he can make all the plays Brett could make yet does not make all the bone head mistakes. Rodgers had 6 INTs all season, Farve threw 6 in one playoff game against the Rams. Farve put up great stats but he was not clutch in big games. I'll take Rodgers any day of the week over Farve.

[SkinBasket]

Interesting point, because Butler openly and publicly campaigned for a coaching-type job for several years, and nothing came of it in GB or anywhere else.

Didn't he have a very short-lived PR type job with them? It seems to me they parted after just a couple months, with neither side saying much about it. Or am I thinking about the wrong former player?

Nope. You got the right guy.

[jdrats]

Listen, you said that Favre never had the talent Rodgers had. I'm not disagreeing with that on a whole.

But individually I still say that Sterling was more talented than anything the Packers have now. He led the league in receptions, receiving yards, receiving touchdowns several times and was in the Top 5 in 6 of his 7 years in the league. Sterling today would still be at or near the top of the league in all those categories. And that is all I was contesting. Favre wasn't bereft of talent either.


No argument here on Sterling Sharpe's talents. He should be included in any conversation of the all time best wide recievers. It is a shame that his career was cut short by injury in 1994. All of us Packers fans are left with, "What could have been..." had Sharpe been able to play a normal length career.

That said, Sharpe did leave in 94. For his MVP and Superbowl years Farve did have a powerhouse defense and a dominating offensive line, but he never had a another #1 WR near that caliber nor did he ever have a receiving corps with the quality and depth that Rodgers has today. There was good offensive balance under Holmgren with WR/TE/RBs all as quality pass catchers, but still not near the depth we have now in our top 6. I've always felt that Farve did more for the careers of his WRs than they ever did for him, with the exception of Sterling Sharpe of course. It is to the shame of the Packers organization that through the combination of some bad luck (i.e. Javon Walker injury/contract blow-up, Murphy injury) and neglect that they never stocked the offense with the kind of receivers he deserved through most of the second half of his years here(and NO I'm not referring to Randy Moss here! ;-).

These "who was better?" arguments in general (Montana-Elway? Elway-Marino? et al) have always seemes pretty pointless to me and especially so in this case. I agree with some of the other posters here. I'm both proud and amazed that this smallest market in the league team has incredibly gone from one "Best in the League" QB to yet another "Best in the League" QB. Outside the unfortunately messy transition I've enjoyed every minute of it. And I love it even more when I think of all the QBS the Bears have gone through during the last 20 years!

[smuggler]

Relative to the rest of the passers in the league at the time, Brett has never had a season as good as Aaron has had this year.

[mraynrand]

There's a reason the organization wanted nothing to do with Butler after he retired and he kept skulking about the stadium begging for something to do. The guy's a retard. A talented retard, but definitely a retard. Christ, even Edgar Bennet could get a job with the team after his playing days were over.

Take away the invective, and I mostly agree with this. I heard Butler talking around about 2003 to 2005 about coaching, and even though he wanted to do it, he admitted that when he discovered just how much he was expected to work, it became less interesting to him. He's always wanted some pretty low key, higher profile kind of spot where he can be the 'friendly face of the Green Bay Packers.' He - like most former players - is mostly stuck in his era, and sees things in that light. It's no surprise that he likes Favre better, even though most of the facts argue against him.

[mraynrand]

You guys crack me up but the answer is simple.

Rodgers is the better QB because he can make all the plays Brett could make yet does not make all the bone head mistakes. Rodgers had 6 INTs all season, Farve threw 6 in one playoff game against the Rams. Farve put up great stats but he was not clutch in big games. I'll take Rodgers any day of the week over Farve.

Right on the money, as ususal.

[ND72]

I would have loved to see how Favre would have developed if Holmgren had stayed. Ray Rhodes year really hurt Favre's growth as a QB since he just let him go...which is funny since McCarthy was his QB coach that year. But there is no doubt that Favre took a huge step back with Rhodes, then Sherman brought him back in, but towards the end was doing the same thing in letting the old gun slinger be the gun slinger. Holmgren would let him sling it, but under his direction. And if he wandered off his direction, Holmgren would call him on it and keep him accountable. Many people later on would not hold Favre accountable. I still remember coming back from a game in 2004, granted, not a good team, but Favre was HORRIBLE in that game, and truly was the reason GB lost that day (sorry I don't remember who against, not the point)...but on the ride home, the post game guys were very up front about Favre being the downfall that day, and some lady called him yelling at the post game guys for saying anything bad about Favre....why? When Rodgers had bad days I'll say bad about him. BUT, Rodgers is very much accountable about himself, maybe more than needed...Favre would very rarely stand up and say this was all on me.

[ND72]

You guys crack me up but the answer is simple.

Rodgers is the better QB because he can make all the plays Brett could make yet does not make all the bone head mistakes. Rodgers had 6 INTs all season, Farve threw 6 in one playoff game against the Rams. Farve put up great stats but he was not clutch in big games. I'll take Rodgers any day of the week over Farve.

UGH....I had erased that game from my memory. disgusting...

[Smidgeon]

No argument here on Sterling Sharpe's talents. He should be included in any conversation of the all time best wide recievers. It is a shame that his career was cut short by injury in 1994. All of us Packers fans are left with, "What could have been..." had Sharpe been able to play a normal length career.

That said, Sharpe did leave in 94. For his MVP and Superbowl years Farve did have a powerhouse defense and a dominating offensive line, but he never had a another #1 WR near that caliber nor did he ever have a receiving corps with the quality and depth that Rodgers has today. There was good offensive balance under Holmgren with WR/TE/RBs all as quality pass catchers, but still not near the depth we have now in our top 6. I've always felt that Farve did more for the careers of his WRs than they ever did for him, with the exception of Sterling Sharpe of course. It is to the shame of the Packers organization that through the combination of some bad luck (i.e. Javon Walker injury/contract blow-up, Murphy injury) and neglect that they never stocked the offense with the kind of receivers he deserved through most of the second half of his years here(and NO I'm not referring to Randy Moss here! ;-).

These "who was better?" arguments in general (Montana-Elway? Elway-Marino? et al) have always seemes pretty pointless to me and especially so in this case. I agree with some of the other posters here. I'm both proud and amazed that this smallest market in the league team has incredibly gone from one "Best in the League" QB to yet another "Best in the League" QB. Outside the unfortunately messy transition I've enjoyed every minute of it. And I love it even more when I think of all the QBS the Bears have gone through during the last 20 years!

With this I agree. In my opinion, I like the QB that is most likely to win the team the next super bowl. Now it's Rodgers. Then it was Favre. The comparison about "who is better" is for pundits and fans and completely irrelevant. I think that them both being the best QB in the league or Top 3 is more than remarkable. Especially in a division with the Bears, Lions, and Vikings who are all still trying to find theirs (Stafford's good, just not Top 3).

[ND72]

With this I agree. In my opinion, I like the QB that is most likely to win the team the next super bowl. Now it's Rodgers. Then it was Favre. The comparison about "who is better" is for pundits and fans and completely irrelevant. I think that them both being the best QB in the league or Top 3 is more than remarkable. Especially in a division with the Bears, Lions, and Vikings who are all still trying to find theirs (Stafford's good, just not Top 3).

Anyone else hear Marshall Faulk say Aaron Rodgers is not a top 5 or elite level QB...because "Matt Flynn did what Aaron Rodgers can do"

[mraynrand]

Anyone else hear Marshall Faulk say Aaron Rodgers is not a top 5 or elite level QB...because "Matt Flynn did what Aaron Rodgers can do"

Sure, and by that logic, Brees is also not top 5 or elite, since Flynn played at least as well as Brees against the same Detroit secondary.

[Packers4Glory]

again comparing different era's in football is using faulty logic. the game is way different today than it was when Favre was in his prime. The NFL has slowly changed the game to exploit the popularity of the most popular players in the NFL...which are QB's. It's not much of an accident there are so many high flying offense in this yr's playoffs and such bad defenses.

[smuggler]

Funny. Before the 2010 season, Marshall Faulk was the first to declare Rodgers the best QB in the league, before it was fashionable. I remember some of the other analysts laughing at him.

[sharpe1027]

Butler in in the entertainment business. Getting noticed generally = good for business.

[Tarlam!]

These "who was better?" arguments in general (Montana-Elway? Elway-Marino? et al) have always seemes pretty pointless to me and especially so in this case.

With this I agree.[...] The comparison about "who is better" is for pundits and fans and completely irrelevant.

It's not pointless to me, nor is it irrelevant. I enjoy the debate about it, because lots of additional info comes to light. Fans and pundits get a kick out of it. The debate between Rodgers and the other guy is only as emotional as it is because one of them played for an NFCN rival with the intention of sticking it to the upper management of the Packers. If not for that, I assume the discussion would be a downright love fest. Alas.


Anyone else hear Marshall Faulk say Aaron Rodgers is not a top 5 or elite level QB...because "Matt Flynn did what Aaron Rodgers can do"

Was he being sarcastic??

[Bossman641]

Anyone else hear Marshall Faulk say Aaron Rodgers is not a top 5 or elite level QB...because "Matt Flynn did what Aaron Rodgers can do"

Seriously?

[Pugger]

Well, no matter what Favre did in his career by 2007 he just wasn't going to work out for us. You can't have your starting QB struggle in the cold when your team is in Wisconsin. This is most likely why MM and company were more than ready to give the reigns to Airin' and didn't think twice about trading Favre to NY.

[Smidgeon]

say what? Favre never had offensive weapons like AR has...just say'n. lets be real. Farve had some good weapons, but he also made some crappy guys look really good, and never an offense like we have today.


He had some good weapons over the years...but never the talent that AR currently has as a whole. Not even close.


again comparing different era's in football is using faulty logic. the game is way different today than it was when Favre was in his prime. The NFL has slowly changed the game to exploit the popularity of the most popular players in the NFL...which are QB's. It's not much of an accident there are so many high flying offense in this yr's playoffs and such bad defenses.

So help me out here. How are your statements not comparing eras?

[Fritz]

Should we be accounting for penis size in this comparison?

[jdrats]

Should we be accounting for penis size in this comparison?

By what standard? Megapixels?

[Brando19]

why is everyone here so dumb when it comes to Favre?

Is it not possible to think that Butler thought AR was the best QB in the division in 2009 when Favre was at the end of his career and AR was just coming into his own? Thats a far cry from being the best overall in his mind? yeah great find.....

Yeah, man...you're real cool. Dumb? It's my opinion...asshole.

[MJZiggy]

Well, no matter what Favre did in his career by 2007 he just wasn't going to work out for us. You can't have your starting QB struggle in the cold when your team is in Wisconsin. This is most likely why MM and company were more than ready to give the reigns to Airin' and didn't think twice about trading Favre to NY.

I believe I once heard that the playoff loss in the cold was a reason M3 was ready to move on.

[mmmdk]

I believe I once heard that the playoff loss in the cold was a reason M3 was ready to move on.

Spot on! :tup:

[denverYooper]

I believe I once heard that the playoff loss in the cold was a reason M3 was ready to move on.

He wasn't the only one.

[MJZiggy]

He wasn't the only one.

You're right. TT was ready as well. :mrgreen:

[Packers4Glory]

Yeah, man...you're real cool. Dumb? It's my opinion...asshole.

sorry dickweed, but the 2 statements were totally unrelated. So, yes, your opinion is dumb.

[mraynrand]

ya kinda knew this thread wasn't going to end well....

[MJZiggy]

ya kinda knew this thread wasn't going to end well....

Yeah, but kudos on seeing the drain swirling so quickly.

[Brando19]

sorry dickweed, but the 2 statements were totally unrelated. So, yes, your opinion is dumb.

Totally unrelated? Did you ride the short bus?

[Tarlam!]

sorry dickweed, but the 2 statements were totally unrelated. So, yes, your opinion is dumb.

How to make friends and influence people, 4Glory? What are you, 15 years old?

I think people that defend a QB that purposely shat on his old teamates and fans after being worshipped for 16 years is as dumb as a box of rocks, but they're entitled to do so without me labelling them as such.

I prefer to focus on the pathic argumentation they bring forward rather than question their intelligence or obvious lack of it. But that's just me.

[Packers4Glory]

How to make friends and influence people, 4Glory? What are you, 15 years old?

I think people that defend a QB that purposely shat on his old teamates and fans after being worshipped for 16 years is as dumb as a box of rocks, but they're entitled to do so without me labelling them as such.

I prefer to focus on the pathic argumentation they bring forward rather than question their intelligence or obvious lack of it. But that's just me.
still waiting on some sort of evidence short of "booo hoo he left us and hurt our feelings". Leave the emotion out of it and look objectively. I was a pissed as anyone he decided to play for the VIkes, but I see no evidence based on the whole thing that says you can crown AR the better player. so I think anyone who can't set aside emotions and look at an argument objectively to be dumb. I expect that more out of the women in my life.

[Tarlam!]

Whatever, 4Glory.

[Brando19]

Brett? Is that you?

[MadtownPacker]

ya kinda knew this thread wasn't going to end well....
Well cant say we didnt give it a shot.

I was hoping this thread could exist because this is a legit topic. As several have mentioned something we should consider ourselves lucky to even be able to discuss which great QB was greater. With that said how about we try to save the thread and discuss the topic or if not we can just issue some weekend account suspensions if it starts getting too out of hand.

As for the topic. Not fair to compare careers because ARod's isnt over. At this point IMO both QBs have allowed us to witness great passing performances and a SB win. They havent done it in the same style but the one constant has been the obviously extreme desire to win and not be accepting of anything else. If Rodgers does win another SB then he would have the one up. Getting there but losing (like '98) would basically make it a tie.

[mraynrand]

At this point IMO both QBs have allowed us to witness great passing performances and a SB win. They havent done it in the same style but the one constant has been the obviously extreme desire to win and not be accepting of anything else. If Rodgers does win another SB then he would have the one up. Getting there but losing (like '98) would basically make it a tie.

I like this. I'm hoping Rodger's career is a lot better than Favre's. It means more SB victories for the Packers! And that's what packer fans care about.

And it's sure a hell of a lot more fun than debating who was better: Dave Roller or Bob Kuberski
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WP5MnHo_pRM/TgqIP_ag-cI/AAAAAAAAAZs/mX8c5Y-c6iI/s1600/daverollerpic0001.jpg
http://www.waukeshasportscards.com/images/product/thumbs/kuberski30001.jpg

[Fritz]

still waiting on some sort of evidence short of "booo hoo he left us and hurt our feelings". Leave the emotion out of it and look objectively. I was a pissed as anyone he decided to play for the VIkes, but I see no evidence based on the whole thing that says you can crown AR the better player. so I think anyone who can't set aside emotions and look at an argument objectively to be dumb. I expect that more out of the women in my life.

Okay, let's.

Let's look at years 4 - 7 of their careers. Those are the four years Rodgers became and was a starter, and those were probably the best years of Favre's career (94-97), so it should provide a fair comparison. Both guys had developed by the time year four rolled around for them, although Favre had more starting experience.

Okay, so for years 4 - 7 of their careers:

Favre had thrown 145 td's and 56 interceptions.

Rodgers has thrown 131 td's and 37 interceptions.

So, 14 fewer td's for Rodgers, but 19 fewer interceptions thrown.

Favre's completion rate for those years was about 61%.

Rodgers's completion rate for his last four years is over 65%.

Favre's best season in terms of total yards was 1995, when he threw for 4413 yards.

Rodgers threw for 4643 yards this year.

For that four year span, Favre threw for 16,061 yards.

In his four years as a starter, Rodgers has thrown for 17,037.

So there you go. Two very good quarterbacks. But by my reckoning, Favre's propensity for throwing interceptions - killing drives and giving the other team the ball - makes Rodgers a better quarterback.

[mraynrand]

Nice try Fritz, but you can't compare between eras

[MadtownPacker]

Great post Fritz. About time you do something besides cringe. :lol:

Really though the numbers are damn close and still leaves me thinking rings will be the deciding factor.

[Brando19]

Great post, Fritz. I'll take Rodgers for one reason and one reason only....turnovers. Gosh I was such a Favre fan when he was with Green Bay, but I swear I was always looking for his next interception. He was very exciting, but my stomach was in knots every game. With Rodgers, it's different. He's just as exciting to watch as Favre...minus the picks. When he throws an interception, I'm completely floored and I usually blame the receiver.

[smuggler]

P4G has a valid point, even though he's not doing too good of a job of getting it across. Those tallied numbers that Fritz provided are split by 17 years of leaguewide change. You really should be going a step beyond and comparing their statistical superiority within the era to one another, instead of just the raw numbers.

That's where advanced passing stats come into play. While these don't take into account the supporting cast, they do effectively compare sheer production across eras.

FAVRE, yrs 4-7:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6695582709_f6470e1a7f_b.jpg

RODGERS, yrs 4-7:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6695582745_24d51df95b_b.jpg

The three most important factors for a QB are, in order: Touchdowns, Interceptions, and Yards (AY/A)

TDs: Advantage, Favre. Rodgers has had the best individual season in that regard in 2011. However, Favre consistently produced a higher score.

INTs: Advantage, Rodgers. This is the most stark contrast among the three. Rodgers has never been below league average.

AY/A: Advantage, Rodgers, but it's close. This year really swung the vote.

Long story short, if the 2011 version of Rodgers hangs around for a few more years, it's not even a debate. How likely is that? I couldn't tell you.

[Pugger]

Nice try Fritz, but you can't compare between eras

But you can compare interceptions and Rodgers' ball security make him the better QB IMO.

[Tarlam!]

Nice job, smuggler. I was surprised to see Bert's win-loss column (only started rooting for the Pack in '02), especially in the first year. Rodgers' 1st year as a starter was way down, plus he missed 2 1/2 contests over the last 2 seasons.

Despite this, I would want my QB to be named Rodgers. Loved Bert when he dressed in Green and Gold, hate him for playing against the Green and Gold. Philosophers maintain there's a fine line between love and hate! :lol:

[KYPack]

Great job on that post, Smuggler.

I was gonna suggest you conduct a little clinic on how to make a post like that. Then I realized if you arm Freak, Zool, or me with that kind of tech expertise, we'd bring the forum to it's knees!

I'm back and forth on any comparisons. You'd need a time machine to do the job properly. Even players in the same era cause debate, how you really gonna compare guys that played at different times?

It's fun, but the debates rarely get settled.

[Deputy Nutz]

ya kinda knew this thread wasn't going to end well....

And I hadn't even posted yet.

[Freak Out]

Nice job, smuggler. I was surprised to see Bert's win-loss column (only started rooting for the Pack in '02), especially in the first year. Rodgers' 1st year as a starter was way down, plus he missed 2 1/2 contests over the last 2 seasons.

Despite this, I would want my QB to be named Rodgers. Loved Bert when he dressed in Green and Gold, hate him for playing against the Green and Gold. Philosophers maintain there's a fine line between love and hate! :lol:

Freaking 02? Johnny come lately. :) You don't even have a dog in this fight Tar.

[pbmax]

Anyone else hear Marshall Faulk say Aaron Rodgers is not a top 5 or elite level QB...because "Matt Flynn did what Aaron Rodgers can do"


Sure, and by that logic, Brees is also not top 5 or elite, since Flynn played at least as well as Brees against the same Detroit secondary.

To a certain extent, I give Faulk a pass on this, at least long term, because if you are going to do Sports Talk on NFLN all day, somebody has to argue about something. Otherwise its Skip Bayless barking up every tree he sees.

[Deputy Nutz]

But you can compare interceptions and Rodgers' ball security make him the better QB IMO.

I wonder how secure Rodgers would have been if he would have had to start 13 games his first year, and 16 games pluse 2 playoff games his second year? Favre threw over 32 picks his first two years with Green Bay Rodgers sat on the bench for his first 3 years in Green Bay watching Favre, learning the right things to do with the football and the wrong things to do with the football. He also realized that he didn't have the supreme ability and talent it took to play at the highest level, and he reinvented himself under the tutilage of McCarthy. Rodgers has a strong arm, but he doesn't have the natural gifts of Brett Favre or John Elway so he he understood he couldn't throw the ball through 2 defenders. It is a hard thing to learn and what makes Rodgers special is that he was able to learn it.

[Deputy Nutz]

He had some good weapons over the years...but never the talent that AR currently has as a whole. Not even close. As mentioned, Billy Schroeder led the team in receiving once. Favre had 1 or 2 good guys around him. AR has 5 really good WR and one of the more talented TE right now.

plus are you telling me that the game is really the same today as it was in the mid 90's? because QB's are owning the NFL at a rate never seen in its history. Favre's 2009 season is a perfect example of how the rules have really changed the game for the QB. Not many QB's have come out and had a season like he did for the Vikes that yr at that age. His best QB rating ever at the very end of his career? GTFO. A Favre playing in his prime today would be the best QB in football.

Favre statistically had a better 2009, at the end of his career, than AR had last yr or in 2009. In the 90's it was rare to see a QB finish w/ a 100 rating, much less the ratings guys are putting up today.

Its too bad Sharpe got hurt because he and Favre would have been unstoppable.

but nice try at grasping at straws. It would be nice to see some intelligence when it comes to Favre instead of irrational emotional BS revisionist thinking.

So far AR has stepped in and there has been absolutely zero drop off in the QB play we had grown accustomed to the previous 16 years. That's what really should be the focus as we sit here and witness AR write his own legacy.

It kinda pisses me off to see people want to start discounting the Favre era and using AR to rip on him. SO what Favre left. get over it nancy. its a business. shit happens. it doesn't change what he brought to this team when he was here. it was a different game then, and if you can't see that when you're doing your comparison then IDK what to tell ya.

It is very rare to find any intelligence when it comes to Favre and Packer fan. Favre was the "golden boy" for Green Bay Packer fans. They were able to watch Favre and cheer and shed tears for him, and shake their head in amazement when he would make plays thought to be impossible, they would stomp their feet and and cuss him out for throwing that game ending pick, but afterwards, Favre would give ya that "awe shucks" smirk of a boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar and all would be forgiven, for the moment. When he left and then went to the Vikings Packer fans were disowned by their "Golden Boy". They were hurt and they can't forgive because it is sport. They now feel righted because Rodgers is exceeding all expectations, they are free to preach their spite and their hatered for Favre because they all feel vindicated. Their memories are wiped clean of the Packers of the 1990s and the 2000s, their feelings of hero worship erased of Brett Favre. Brett Favre, is Packer fan's fallen angel.

[pbmax]

I wonder how secure Rodgers would have been if he would have had to start 13 games his first year, and 16 games pluse 2 playoff games his second year? Favre threw over 32 picks his first two years with Green Bay Rodgers sat on the bench for his first 3 years in Green Bay watching Favre, learning the right things to do with the football and the wrong things to do with the football. He also realized that he didn't have the supreme ability and talent it took to play at the highest level, and he reinvented himself under the tutilage of McCarthy. Rodgers has a strong arm, but he doesn't have the natural gifts of Brett Favre or John Elway so he he understood he couldn't throw the ball through 2 defenders. It is a hard thing to learn and what makes Rodgers special is that he was able to learn it.

It has been written several times that Rodgers hated throwing picks long before he met Lorenzo, so he did not pick up the anti-habit from sitting on the bench and watching.

And McGinn has written that he did remake his body and attitude after his second year, but as a first round grade/first round pick (Favre was a 1/2 round grade, 2nd round pick) I doubt he suffers much in physical comparison to Favre. Both were 6' 2" and 220 with the same size hands. McGinn did note that someone he talked to considered that bad weight for Rodgers.

Favre was as tough as it gets, but a good percentage of that was mule-headed stubbornness. I think the fact that he gave up on this in the middle of his career points to the fact that his ultra-physical style of play was unsustainable, gifts or no.

[Fritz]

Great post Fritz. About time you do something besides cringe. :lol:

Really though the numbers are damn close and still leaves me thinking rings will be the deciding factor.


That line makes me cringe.

[Deputy Nutz]

I've really tried to stay out of the Favre/Rodgers battle. Very hard to compare the 2 IMO. I grew up loving Favre, and I pretty much love Rodgers as much as I once loved Favre. The biggest thing that is hard for some people is the fact the Favre was as much a "caricature" as he was an athlete for GB. He would do something in a game and people would laugh and fall more in love with him because he was just having fun and so on. Favre did some amazing things, no question, but there were many times he would make mistakes early in his career, but had an amazing defense that could make up for his mistakes. Later in his career that fact showed it's ugly face a lot. Granted he had some great years without a very good defense though. He also put up some crazy numbers without the type of talent Rodgers has right now. You can look and see Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, antonio Freeman, Donald Driver...but none of them really played together at the same time. Sterling was with Brooks, but Brooks wasn't really used...then Brooks took over, and Freeman was the lesser used, than Freeman took ove and Driver was the lesser used...GB has had a nice run of #1 recievers, but never had likely 4 #1 guys on the team at one time, PLUS a pretty good TE in Finley. I mean come on, Bill Schroeder led the team as a receiver one season. The Packers running game for many years early in Favre's career were screens and dump off passes.

Now on the flip side, Rodgers is a Quarterbacks Quarterback. I would assume Rodgers could develop into a very good coach some day given his attention to detail. If Rodgers didn't walk into a situation that had Driver and Jennings year 1, it could have been a bad start for him. but Thompson has loaded this team with weapons, and doesn't care if we have 6 WR's to compete for 5 spots as long as the best 5 make it...at any position. I love Rodgers, we have to credit some of his success to the talent that's been placed around him. BUT...I don't think Brett Favre could have made some of the throws that Aaron Rodgers has made in the past year. He's been fun to watch, and I hope we can get some OL talent around him to keep him upright for many years. How many teams can say they had 2 HOF QB's play back to back and it lasted potentially 30 years? Bear fans will hate us.

How many QBs threw for over 4000 yards this year? how many threw for over 5000 yards? 5 qbs throwing for over 30 tds and 3 throwing for over 40.

Favre has never had the offensive fire power on one team that is currently built around Rodgers. I would say the closest was 2002 with Driver, Walker, Ferguson, Green, Wesley Walls.

If Favre had his crew completely healthy for 1996 Then I would argue that 1996 was comparable to 2011. Losing Freeman to a broken arm, and Brooks for the whole season really hurt the productivity of the offense, bringing in Rison was a great band aide for the playoffs.

[Deputy Nutz]

It has been written several times that Rodgers hated throwing picks long before he met Lorenzo, so he did not pick up the anti-habit from sitting on the bench and watching. Hating throwing picks and throwing them are two different things. Rodgers has the ability now to make plays, but how many sacks would he take his first two years as a starter because he refused to get rid of the ball? He didn't have the ability to make plays his first two years, he didn't want to force the ball, and he didn't have the understanding of the offense to go through his reads fast enough. Now it is a different story, Rodgers is surgical with the offense.
And McGinn has written that he did remake his body and attitude after his second year, but as a first round grade/first round pick (Favre was a 1/2 round grade, 2nd round pick) I doubt he suffers much in physical comparison to Favre. Both were 6' 2" and 220 with the same size hands. McGinn did note that someone he talked to considered that bad weight for Rodgers. This really does nothing to prove that. Favre was a better athlete then Rodgers, better arm, better legs. Rodgers slipped in the draft because he was a mechanical robot, with slow feet. He also fell because teams didn't need a qb. Favre was a little known prospect from Southern Miss that carried all the intangibles that great sports fiction is written on, He didn't have the big name and was drafted 9 spots lower than Rodgers

Favre was as tough as it gets, but a good percentage of that was mule-headed stubbornness. I think the fact that he gave up on this in the middle of his career points to the fact that his ultra-physical style of play was unsustainable, gifts or no. Playing with a broken thumb and playing great and making the playoffs, call you what you want, but I call it selling out for your team. Going out on a frozen field for a worthless game at 41 years of age and getting mauled was being mule-headed stubborn.

[Deputy Nutz]

geezus. I realize Favre pissed a lot of fans off, but come on man!

1. the lg has already changed a great deal from Favre's hey day. It's a much more pass oriented lg...not to mention all the rules recently put into place to help the QB and offenses.

2. Favre was an absolute stud in his prime. He did things NOBODY else could do back there.

3. AR is a much more calculated and safer QB. Right now AR is playing as good or better than Favre for a 20+ game stretch. But again, the lg is a lot different than it was, AR has a sick supporting cast, and its still a small sample size.

Lets see what happens this yr and for the next several before we crown AR as the better QB. It's waaaay to early to be making that call.

I love me some AR for many many reasons which include how awesomely he has handled the transition and having to follow a legend. Other than Montana and Young, there is no other story like AR's and what he's done. Nobody that I can recall has came into the lg unestablished and taken over for a HOF QB and done what AR has done. I love it. But its a little too early to convince me he's better than Favre. He's still got a ways to go before you can seriously have that discussion.



The ONE great thing about this is AR already has a chip on his shoulder and maybe this just adds to it. This just dumps more gas on his fire and desire to shut up everyone. So I'll thank Butler in advance.

This is a great post. 100% correct.

[Deputy Nutz]

I would have loved to see how Favre would have developed if Holmgren had stayed. Ray Rhodes year really hurt Favre's growth as a QB since he just let him go...which is funny since McCarthy was his QB coach that year. But there is no doubt that Favre took a huge step back with Rhodes, then Sherman brought him back in, but towards the end was doing the same thing in letting the old gun slinger be the gun slinger. Holmgren would let him sling it, but under his direction. And if he wandered off his direction, Holmgren would call him on it and keep him accountable. Many people later on would not hold Favre accountable. I still remember coming back from a game in 2004, granted, not a good team, but Favre was HORRIBLE in that game, and truly was the reason GB lost that day (sorry I don't remember who against, not the point)...but on the ride home, the post game guys were very up front about Favre being the downfall that day, and some lady called him yelling at the post game guys for saying anything bad about Favre....why? When Rodgers had bad days I'll say bad about him. BUT, Rodgers is very much accountable about himself, maybe more than needed...Favre would very rarely stand up and say this was all on me.

This is just rambling BS. Listen to the radio, listen to people talk about Rodgers, he is the new hero in Green Bay and he like Favre in the past can do no wrong. It is a cycle bro, fans are "what are doing for me lately" and people are willing to fight if you go against Rodgers, or the Packers.

[Deputy Nutz]

Well, no matter what Favre did in his career by 2007 he just wasn't going to work out for us. You can't have your starting QB struggle in the cold when your team is in Wisconsin. This is most likely why MM and company were more than ready to give the reigns to Airin' and didn't think twice about trading Favre to NY.

It was one of the coldest game ever played, and it was played at night, and it completely shut down the Packers runnning game and played hell with Al Harris's coverage on Plaxico Burress, but it was completely Favre's fault, it is just easier to remember it that way instead of looking at the entire game. MM and Thompson didn't ship Favre out, if they were happy to get rid of Favre they would have traded him when he asked to be traded. They sat on him and when he stood up to them he became a villian, and then they shipped him to New York. Favre retired, I know and it forced McCarthy and Thompson to move on to Rodgers, if they were so sold on Rodgers though, why were they willing to meet with Favre in May of '08 to talk about Favre coming back to the Packers?

[Deputy Nutz]

Yeah, man...you're real cool. Dumb? It's my opinion...asshole.

Well apparently he thought your opinion was dumb. Your opinion is that he is an asshole. I just found it interesting that you took the time to edit this post and still called him an asshole.

[Deputy Nutz]

I believe I once heard that the playoff loss in the cold was a reason M3 was ready to move on.

Wrong, but nice attempt.

[Deputy Nutz]

How to make friends and influence people, 4Glory? What are you, 15 years old?

I think people that defend a QB that purposely shat on his old teamates and fans after being worshipped for 16 years is as dumb as a box of rocks, but they're entitled to do so without me labelling them as such.

I prefer to focus on the pathic argumentation they bring forward rather than question their intelligence or obvious lack of it. But that's just me.

Your opinion stated above is filled with ridiculous stupidity. moving forward please impress us all with your legendary opinions on the Packers lore of the 1990s.

[MJZiggy]

Wrong, but nice attempt.How is it wrong. It was something I read long ago. Are you saying you have proof that Favre's performance in that game had nothing to do with the Packers' willingness to move on? At one point Favre was contending that they were trying to push him out. Perhaps this was why. If you think I'm wrong prove to me that it was never said.

[Scott Campbell]

MM and Thompson didn't ship Favre out, if they were happy to get rid of Favre they would have traded him when he asked to be traded.


Pure fantasy.

Favre NEVER asked to be traded. He (and his merry band of filthy media whore family members and puppeteer/agent) asked for his unconditional release, so that he could go sign with MN without the Packers receiving any compensation.

And that is why so many people took so much pleasure in watching him completely piss away his legacy. He is now best remembered for being a creepy pervert.

And I love it.

[Tarlam!]

Your opinion stated above is filled with ridiculous stupidity. moving forward please impress us all with your legendary opinions on the Packers lore of the 1990s.

Fuck you nutz! If I want any lip from you, I'll rattle my zipper.

[smuggler]

Jesus Nutz, at least edit all those quoteposts into one. What compels one person have to run through a thread and respond to every little thing? More importantly, why did you need to use 8 posts?

[Brando19]

Well apparently he thought your opinion was dumb. Your opinion is that he is an asshole. I just found it interesting that you took the time to edit this post and still called him an asshole.

Pay attention to detail? oohhh...nice. Why don't you and Gloryhole get a room? Unless.......you're the same person!

[Tarlam!]

Nutz is just pullin' my chain Brando. We've been mates for a long time. His son is getting my #4 AWAY jersey. :lol:

[Packers4Glory]

Pay attention to detail? oohhh...nice. Why don't you and Gloryhole get a room? Unless.......you're the same person!

yeah..mods. Can we get an IP check on that please?

[smuggler]

Different people, Brando.

[Deputy Nutz]

Pay attention to detail? oohhh...nice. Why don't you and Gloryhole get a room? Unless.......you're the same person!

uncalled for. grow up.

[Deputy Nutz]

How is it wrong. It was something I read long ago. Are you saying you have proof that Favre's performance in that game had nothing to do with the Packers' willingness to move on? At one point Favre was contending that they were trying to push him out. Perhaps this was why. If you think I'm wrong prove to me that it was never said.

Perhaps, perhaps perhaps. Check out Favre's record in games under 32 degrees, he had proven he can win games in cold weather. If McCarthy wanted him out because he had a poor performance in one of the coldest games on record then I think McCarthy needs to have his head examined. If you think a coach wants a player removed because of one game due to his play in extreme conditions then you should also have your head examined and not believe or construct everything you read into fact.

[Deputy Nutz]

Different people, Brando.

But both AWESOME!

[Deputy Nutz]

Jesus Nutz, at least edit all those quoteposts into one. What compels one person have to run through a thread and respond to every little thing? More importantly, why did you need to use 8 posts?

I am obsessed with my post count. Why are you the post police?

[MJZiggy]

Perhaps, perhaps perhaps. Check out Favre's record in games under 32 degrees, he had proven he can win games in cold weather. If McCarthy wanted him out because he had a poor performance in one of the coldest games on record then I think McCarthy needs to have his head examined. If you think a coach wants a player removed because of one game due to his play in extreme conditions then you should also have your head examined and not believe or construct everything you read into fact.

Then why did I know we were going to lose that game before it started? Fact of the matter is that the coach has GOT to trust that his QB is going to give it everything he's got ESPECIALLY in the playoffs. Favre did not want to be there and let the weather get in his head. If I questioned his motivation to stay in and fight at that point, M3 must've as well. His total record in games under 32 degrees is irrelevant. The more relevant stat is his performance in cold weather games in his last two seasons or so. Hell, we went through an annual merry-go-round waiting for the diva to decide if he wanted to bother with playing another season--like for years.

[Deputy Nutz]

Again, this is your opinion and that is fine, not very logical but it is yours and you are going to own it.

Yep Favre didn't want to be there, he didn't want to go to a Super Bowl he wanted to be back in Mississippi riding his tractor. He lost the NFC Championship game, and lost an earlier game to the Bears in 50 mile an hour winds where neither team could throw the ball. His record in previous cold weather games is either relevant because it points to the fact that he can play well and had a history of playing good football in cold weather, especially in Green Bay, or according to your argument of it being irrelevant then the weather should have had no impact on the loss to the Giants, Favre simply made a bad throw at the end of the game, because in reality his overall stats where not that bad, not great but actually better than Eli Mannings in that game. So what is it?

Yep Ziggy I believe you, Favre is a quitter.

One more thing how did his off season decisions play into his ability to play in cold weather games? Everytime Favre made the decision to come back to the Packers, packer fan acted like it was a second Christmas. It was only after he decided to retire and then comeback and then was traded did Packer fan become annoyed. Funny how we choose to remember things, because I don't remember you bitching about Favre in the spring of 2007.

One more thing the week before in a cold weather game where it was snowing so hard television had a hard time getting a clear shot of the field, Favre had a passer rating over 100. 28 degrees is a bit different than a windchill of 30 below zero. Extreme circumstance that only a Packer Fan would make an absolute.

[MJZiggy]

The last post was my opinion (and "not that bad" is not the way I'd like to describe my QB's performance with a Super Bowl on the line). The first is something I read that McCarthy had said. Understand the difference.

What I question is his true desire to put in the work and play the game at the end of his career. I want a quarterback that is all in no matter how much work it involves and how sucky the weather is at the end of the season--the week before was nothing compared to that game. It was just snowy-not brutally cold. Sorry, but Wisconsin gets brutally cold. I never again want to look at the QB before a championship game and think "aw shit" and be right. You won't find much from me on the topic in the spring of 2007, but if it were still there, I'd have you reread my article the week before he retired.

[pbmax]

Hating throwing picks and throwing them are two different things. Rodgers has the ability now to make plays, but how many sacks would he take his first two years as a starter because he refused to get rid of the ball? He didn't have the ability to make plays his first two years, he didn't want to force the ball, and he didn't have the understanding of the offense to go through his reads fast enough. Now it is a different story, Rodgers is surgical with the offense.

Agree with the last statement except that he made plenty of plays in 09. Then he went to another level in '10 after the Cowboys game at Lambeau when McCarthy handed him the keys. Same as Favre, he had little latitude early in his career. But your original point was that Rodgers learned from Favre's bad habits. I am saying that is not the case.


This really does nothing to prove that. Favre was a better athlete then Rodgers, better arm, better legs. Rodgers slipped in the draft because he was a mechanical robot, with slow feet. He also fell because teams didn't need a qb. Favre was a little known prospect from Southern Miss that carried all the intangibles that great sports fiction is written on, He didn't have the big name and was drafted 9 spots lower than Rodgers

Favre was bigger and tougher than Rodgers. But a better athlete? No way. And Favre never had Rodgers legs. Stronger? Could be. But that isn't the mark of an athlete. Rodgers athleticism might have been masked by his scheme and college coach, but that does not make Rodgers a poorer athlete.


Playing with a broken thumb and playing great and making the playoffs, call you what you want, but I call it selling out for your team. Going out on a frozen field for a worthless game at 41 years of age and getting mauled was being mule-headed stubborn.

He absolutely sold out for his teams. But he did not play the same reckless game he did when he was younger. Playing with pain/injury is one thing (and something he did more of than most), playing in a manner to encourage injuries is another.

[pbmax]

Perhaps, perhaps perhaps. Check out Favre's record in games under 32 degrees, he had proven he can win games in cold weather. If McCarthy wanted him out because he had a poor performance in one of the coldest games on record then I think McCarthy needs to have his head examined. If you think a coach wants a player removed because of one game due to his play in extreme conditions then you should also have your head examined and not believe or construct everything you read into fact.

He folded twice that year in the cold, @Chicago and the NFCCG. He was old, no one's body reacts the same to the cold after 40. He wanted to be anywhere but in that game in the 2nd half. But I would also lay odds that he was changing plays or his progression for McCarthy to make the comment he did.

[pbmax]

Kyle Orton: 9-15-104-1-0
Brett Favre: 17-32-153-0-2

Outplayed by Kyle Orton, Bernard Berrian and Greg Olsen.

[pbmax]

Enough with knocking one to stack the other higher.

As a former Browns fan who must convince people to take Bernie Kosar or Frank Ryan seriously to pair with Otto Graham for a trifecta of QB goodness, the Packers have had an embarrassment of riches at the position over the years. It should make everyone happy and Bears fans miserable.

[Bossman641]

He absolutely sold out for his teams. But he did not play the same reckless game he did when he was younger. Playing with pain/injury is one thing (and something he did more of than most), playing in a manner to encourage injuries is another.

Yep, like in the playoff game against Minn when he sheepishly threw the ball when he was a good 3-4 yards past the LOS rather than try to make a play.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm going to pipe in again. IMHO, Rodgers is better right now than Favre was at his best.
:)

It's close, but I'd take Rodgers. Of course, it all comes down to ball security. Both guys had cannons. Both were accurate. Brett was more accurate on some types of throws (Favre may have been the best ever on the slant route, or second behind Montana). Rodgers on others (most notably, the long ball). Rodgers is athletic, but so was Brett back in the mid 90s. Brett just turned the ball over more, but not quite as much as most of his career when he was at his best and Holmgren curtailed him a bit. That's the difference between the two. They both win games for you, but Brett would lose some games with a boneheaded pick.

[mraynrand]

Yep, like in the playoff game against Minn when he sheepishly threw the ball when he was a good 3-4 yards past the LOS rather than try to make a play.

fucker


http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favrebailout.mp4

[Tarlam!]

the Packers have had an embarrassment of riches at the position over the years. It should make everyone happy and Bears fans miserable.

The only thing I thank him for is his major part in resurrecting the franchise, yet I hope they never retire his number, and if they do, I hope it is post mortum. In a game that is sponsored by the fans, there is no place for the Bert's of the league.

I didn't get the benefit of the 1997 title. I got to watch some fun games - I even saw him live at Lambeau! But also, the dumb interceptions that ended seasons. Despite that, I wish I could look back and indulge in the past joyfully, I wish I could put Bert on a pedestal, but unfortunately, it's impossible. The guy shat all over his Green Bay legacy maliciously. His GB legacy today is hammering a wedge down the middle of Packer Nation causingsome fans to stop being fans (right Nutz?).

There are people that truly believe Bert was shafted by the Packers' management. What a joke. The man holds a teary eyed retirement press conference on 3/6/10 and on 4/24/10 tells Letterman "somethin's bound to happen".

My fondest memories of Bert these days are his INT against NO in the 2009 NFCCG, and watching him get pulverized in the 2010 season.

[Deputy Nutz]

Agree with the last statement except that he made plenty of plays in 09. Then he went to another level in '10 after the Cowboys game at Lambeau when McCarthy handed him the keys. Same as Favre, he had little latitude early in his career. But your original point was that Rodgers learned from Favre's bad habits. I am saying that is not the case. I think Rodgers watched Favre and understood what happens when you press. When Favre had good defenses that he felt he could rely on he did a better job of reigning it in. He took less risks because he believed he didn't have to win the game all by himself. When the defense was leaking, he tried to win every game on one throw, he took his gunslinger mentality to a whole other level usually a destructive one. Rodgers is the exact opposite, he takes what is given to him and is plays with a level head regardless of his defense. I believe he did learn how to and not to manage a game under all different circumstances while he viewed Favre from the sidelines.

Favre was bigger and tougher than Rodgers. But a better athlete? No way. And Favre never had Rodgers legs. Stronger? Could be. But that isn't the mark of an athlete. Rodgers athleticism might have been masked by his scheme and college coach, but that does not make Rodgers a poorer athlete. He wasn't a great athlete in college, he hit a growth spurt a little later in life and he was determined to make it. Favre has always had all the tools, he was blessed, and I have watched film of a young Brett Favre and he was just as fast if not faster than Aaron Rodgers in cleats. I will agree to disagree, but I have a feeling you are comparing the 38 year old Brett Favre to 27 year old Aaron Rodgers.

He absolutely sold out for his teams. But he did not play the same reckless game he did when he was younger. Playing with pain/injury is one thing (and something he did more of than most), playing in a manner to encourage injuries is another. I think Favre used his abilities better than most QBs to avoid injuries, he had the arm strength to get rid of the ball and still manage to backout of the pocket. He knew how to take hits, if you ever watched him take a sack or get hit after a throw he never broke his fall with his arms, he held them at his side and tried to land on his ass, it was pretty intelligent, because a lot of QBs seperate their shoulders when they try to break their fall, but now it doesn't matter since it is illegal to hit a QB.

n

[Deputy Nutz]

The only thing I thank him for is his major part in resurrecting the franchise, yet I hope they never retire his number, and if they do, I hope it is post mortum. In a game that is sponsored by the fans, there is no place for the Bert's of the league.

I didn't get the benefit of the 1997 title. I got to watch some fun games - I even saw him live at Lambeau! But also, the dumb interceptions that ended seasons. Despite that, I wish I could look back and indulge in the past joyfully, I wish I could put Bert on a pedestal, but unfortunately, it's impossible. The guy shat all over his Green Bay legacy maliciously. His GB legacy today is hammering a wedge down the middle of Packer Nation causingsome fans to stop being fans (right Nutz?).

There are people that truly believe Bert was shafted by the Packers' management. What a joke. The man holds a teary eyed retirement press conference on 3/6/10 and on 4/24/10 tells Letterman "somethin's bound to happen".

My fondest memories of Bert these days are his INT against NO in the 2009 NFCCG, and watching him get pulverized in the 2010 season.

Read this post one more time, and realize how ridiculous it is. To put this much emotion and energy into disliking a person you never even met, a person that played a game for a living. You think you might be taking this shit a little too serious? Everything I learned about this Favre situation was that I took this game far too serious, it wasn't worth it. It is a game played by guys that don't give a rats ass what we think, They will put on their dog and pony show for us fans so we feel that they are really stand up guys and that they are just like us. Well they are not, they don't pay 250.00 bucks to come watch us do our job. As long as we buy their jerseys and buy their autographs they will put on their show for us because it lines their pockets. I don't have a problem with it, but I see it as what it is, a form of entertainment, and I can now watch a football game for the enjoyment of the game, and don't have stomach problems after the Packers lose, I can go to sleep after a loss without losing any sleep thinking about this interception or that fumble. I am entertained for 3 hours here and maybe 3 hours on monday night, but I don't swear at the tv anymore, dry heav in my friends driveway because the Packers lost the NFL championship game. It is refreshing.

You feel the need to ridicule a professional athlete for doing his job and making it personal. Favre was never once disrespectful to the Packers organization, has always thank them, and the fans of the Green Bay Packers, he moved on. It was simply the way things had to be. Maybe it is your European upbringing following that horrible game of Soccer, but I just don't understand. The good things that Favre did for the Green Bay Packers far out weighs the bad. If you disagree with that, then you either have a very limited memory of Packer football, or you are just ignorant.

I have never said that the Packers should have chosen Favre over Rodgers. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by all. There were things Favre should have don differently, he should have never retired if he still wanted to play, he shouldn't have been toying with the Packers about coming back, he should have really thought it all through. He should have never done the interview with Greta. The Packers shouldn't have sat on him, they should have traded him when he asked for his trade, hell they should have released him if they weren't going to use him. Using him as a backup to Rodgers would have been BS, and they tried to play that card with him and that is where it got disrespectful.

[Tarlam!]

Favre was never once disrespectful to the Packers organization, has always thank them, and the fans of the Green Bay Packers, he moved on. It was simply the way things had to be.

You're on drugs if you believe this.

BTW, the term "fan" is short for "fanatic". Go figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)#Etymology

[woodbuck27]

Not impressed by the timing of this assumption by Bertler; to be a whole QB is more than gunslinging and being an ironman. Forinstance, imagine Rodgers giving Flynn the treatment Bert gave Rodgers. Bert was a very, very rich mans Billy Joe Tolliver - those kind of QBs shouldn't even be winning SBs. They need help and Bert had a boatload of help compared to Rodgers.

Rodgers>>>Bert - yet Bert is still a fringe top 15 QB All time. Rodgers will be top 10 for sure when his career is over sans major injuries. Packers have been QB blessed.

and ..........YOU really believe that. Amazing.

That post or your opinion is so full of holes I won't even bother to contradict it in detail. It's not worthy of serious consideration as anything but an extremely narrow minded slam against Brett Favre. Stand up and look at the record and at least try to walk straight. I'll put it this way. Take off that 'closed mind hat' and look at the facts Packer fan.

Hint: Begin with weapons. What Favre had Vs what has been supplied to Aaron Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers has a treasure chest of weapons Vs what Favre had especially so after the second season we went to the Super Bowl in the 1990's and lost to Denver. Super Bowl 32. ** After that too many times. Favre's heroics carried our team. He was always there to stand up straight in terms of responsibility too. That man suffered every single loss. Before you annoit Aaron Rodgers as thegreatest packwer that ever wore the uniform. Give him some seasons to prove he should be considered even for that distinction.


Maybe you'll pick up on the TRUTH by revisiting the fact that Favre did get us to a second straight Super Bowl man. Super Bowls 31 and 32. Brett Favre was our QB that helped DO that man. Here's a reminder for you:

http://www.denverbroncos.com/media-lounge/videos/NFL-Network-Top-Ten-Super-Bowls/bd0dbc05-2065-4731-a82a-986945cf1c51

GO Pack GO !

[Scott Campbell]

He (Brett) was always there to stand up straight in terms of responsibility too.


I thought it bent a little to the left. But I tried not to look too close.

[Deputy Nutz]

You're on drugs if you believe this.

BTW, the term "fan" is short for "fanatic". Go figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)#Etymology

You took his leave personally, and I feel for you, I really do. For a guy you only watched for 5 season you certainly took his departure hard.

[SkinBasket]

nutz mixed up his laxative with his sports supplement this weekend. I haven't seen him this fired up since that can of Four Loco.

[Deputy Nutz]

Still a ways to go on that second championship.

[LEWCWA]

Yeah I guess, Arod is looking more like Brett than Bart, but hey he still has time.....it is tough to win in the playoffs and GB proved that today....Arod is a stud, just like Brett was for 20 years...who is/was better? Who cares, they are/were both awsome and we are very lucky to have had them both.....Hopefully, arod has a couple in him over the next few years, but even superman Brady hasn't won in a long time...it is tough to do.....and yes arod just had a pretty poor showing in a playoff game..

[Pugger]

But his RBs and WRs didn't do him any favors. If it weren't for Rodgers' feet we wouldn't have had half the 1st downs tonight.

[mraynrand]

Still a ways to go on that second championship.


You had to know the BFFFs were going to bask in the glow of the first Packer playoff loss. It was inevitable. The human condition....

[Deputy Nutz]

No I don't take glory in a Packer loss, just Packer fan falling off the ledge. A lot of people were already making room in the trophy case for the Packers 5th Lombardi Trophy. They were already pushing Favre aside because of the expectations of another championship in 2011. We did the same thing in 1997.

[mmmdk]

But his RBs and WRs didn't do him any favors. If it weren't for Rodgers' feet we wouldn't have had half the 1st downs tonight.

Spot on! :tup:

[Deputy Nutz]

I told my wife the first thing Packer fan would do, defend Rodgers and talk about his 66 yards rushing and 6 first downs. The guy had a very poor game by his standards, his Passer rating was 82% before his late interception. The offense was out of whack for 4 quarters, Rodger shares the blame in that, not all. He certainly can't be blamed for Kuhn fumbling and Grant's fumble, but several of those accounted drops were because Rodgers was not as accurate with his passes. He got Grant cranked on one dump off pass that was graded as a drop, but was thrown behind him.

[Bossman641]

I told my wife the first thing Packer fan would do, defend Rodgers and talk about his 66 yards rushing and 6 first downs. The guy had a very poor game by his standards, his Passer rating was 82% before his late interception. The offense was out of whack for 4 quarters, Rodger shares the blame in that, not all. He certainly can't be blamed for Kuhn fumbling and Grant's fumble, but several of those accounted drops were because Rodgers was not as accurate with his passes. He got Grant cranked on one dump off pass that was graded as a drop, but was thrown behind him.

I agree with what you are saying somewhat. Rodgers definitely wasn't on, but even if you disregard all the questionable drops that still leaves 5-6 others.

[woodbuck27]

Well I for one am glad Leroy settled the debate once and for all.

Seriously when will it end?

That Packer fans can't garner the strength to not have the respect of restraint is the most surprizing thing to me.

One of OUR most knowledgeable members of Packerrats came close to expressing what I sometimes feel.

This isn't an exact quote and may be toned down a wee bit:

I could not ever hate the Green Bay Packers; it's sometimes easy to hate Packer fans.

I take comfort in this fact. I must never be shocked by the ignorance of the prejudicial and narrow minded. When you make a BIG statement you have to include the BIG picture.

Saying that Aaron Rodgers is the GREATEST at this point in his career would be more inaccurate than saying (to illustrate) that Gayle Sayers was the GREATEST running back of all time in the game of football. Who is the gratest? Favre or Rodgers? I dont have enough information to make that judgement right now and I don't even imagine I may ever have such to determine that there is even any controversy.

Clearly at this point and looking at their respective body of works. Clearl,y Brett Favre is the greatest QB between these two candidates for such analysis by people that don't even have the sense to not go there. PLEASE !!!

For all that's deemed HOLY in Packer Land. Let this fricken debate go! Packerrats..... show some class.

[Pugger]

I told my wife the first thing Packer fan would do, defend Rodgers and talk about his 66 yards rushing and 6 first downs. The guy had a very poor game by his standards, his Passer rating was 82% before his late interception. The offense was out of whack for 4 quarters, Rodger shares the blame in that, not all. He certainly can't be blamed for Kuhn fumbling and Grant's fumble, but several of those accounted drops were because Rodgers was not as accurate with his passes. He got Grant cranked on one dump off pass that was graded as a drop, but was thrown behind him.

Rodgers clearly wasn't in sync all night long but there are enough guilty parties on both sides of the ball to share in the blame for this disaster.

[woodbuck27]

Neither Butler nor Jennings opinions really matter much when comparing Favre vs Rodgers. Butler played with Favre in his prime and Jennings is playing with Rodgers in his. While Jennings did play with both Favre and Rodgers, he only played with Favre two seasons when he was 37-38 yo. Rodgers at 37-38 will not be as good as Rodgers now if he even plays that long. Our opinions as fans should actually be more valued than Butler or Jennings because we have been following the packers are whole lives and have watched both play. Butler and Jennings are going to be biased towards the QB they played with. Even Driver didn't come on until 99', the start of a two year period of transition and missing the playoffs. 99’, 00’, and 05’ were probably his worst seasons.

IMO Favre is still better than Rodgers as of right now. They both have one superbowl victory, but Favre played 20 years without missing a game and played at a high level almost every year. He has almost every major passing record and played during a time when it wasn’t a foul to tackle. The only way Rodgers passes Favre is to win more superbowls. He will never come close to his records, starting streak, and likeability among fans (07 and before). Winning championships to me holds more weight than anything else and that’s the one area that Favre does not have a big edge. One championship in 20 years is not very good considering he was in the playoffs about 12 times in his career. I understand he played on some bad teams in which he was the only bright spot, but his playoff performances after 97 for the most part sucked. If Rodgers wants to even make this a discussion he can't let opportunities to win titles (like this season for example) go to waste, because while we currently look like we will be good for a while, nothing is guaranteed.

So as of today, I would still put Favre ahead of Rodgers.

Extremely well expressed and so right on.

[woodbuck27]

no way. They all know Sayers was better.

I see a nice trap there.

[woodbuck27]

I've really tried to stay out of the Favre/Rodgers battle. Very hard to compare the 2 IMO. I grew up loving Favre, and I pretty much love Rodgers as much as I once loved Favre. The biggest thing that is hard for some people is the fact the Favre was as much a "caricature" as he was an athlete for GB. He would do something in a game and people would laugh and fall more in love with him because he was just having fun and so on. Favre did some amazing things, no question, but there were many times he would make mistakes early in his career, but had an amazing defense that could make up for his mistakes. Later in his career that fact showed it's ugly face a lot. Granted he had some great years without a very good defense though. He also put up some crazy numbers without the type of talent Rodgers has right now. You can look and see Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, antonio Freeman, Donald Driver...but none of them really played together at the same time. Sterling was with Brooks, but Brooks wasn't really used...then Brooks took over, and Freeman was the lesser used, than Freeman took ove and Driver was the lesser used...GB has had a nice run of #1 recievers, but never had likely 4 #1 guys on the team at one time, PLUS a pretty good TE in Finley. I mean come on, Bill Schroeder led the team as a receiver one season. The Packers running game for many years early in Favre's career were screens and dump off passes.

Now on the flip side, Rodgers is a Quarterbacks Quarterback. I would assume Rodgers could develop into a very good coach some day given his attention to detail. If Rodgers didn't walk into a situation that had Driver and Jennings year 1, it could have been a bad start for him. but Thompson has loaded this team with weapons, and doesn't care if we have 6 WR's to compete for 5 spots as long as the best 5 make it...at any position. I love Rodgers, we have to credit some of his success to the talent that's been placed around him. BUT...I don't think Brett Favre could have made some of the throws that Aaron Rodgers has made in the past year. He's been fun to watch, and I hope we can get some OL talent around him to keep him upright for many years. How many teams can say they had 2 HOF QB's play back to back and it lasted potentially 30 years? Bear fans will hate us.

Nice. Thanks.

[Tarlam!]

That Packer fans can't garner the strength to not have the respect of restraint is the most surprizing thing to me.

Clearly at this point and looking at their respective body of works. Clearl,y Brett Favre is the greatest QB between these two candidates for such analysis by people that don't even have the sense to not go there. PLEASE !!!

Let this fricken debate go! Packerrats..... show some class.

How about you begin and show them all how it's done?

[Packers4Glory]

Good grief AR missed on maybe 2 passes that he normally makes. The TD to Jennings on the 1st drive and the pass to Fin which you could probably make a case that Fin slowed up and didn't quite run a good route. The rest is on the receivers for dropping so many balls, many of which just killed drives. The guy can't throw to himself. Otherwise he did it all by himself last night w/ very little help. Driver seemed to be the only guy who came to play. I can't complain about the fumble, he was stripped as his arm was back to hit a TD. That's on the line.

And once again, AR can't do anything about a team that lets the other guys run to set up a hail mary...or other guys putting the ball on the ground.

AR, while maybe not having his best game of the yr, deserved a much better fate.

[pbmax]

I told my wife the first thing Packer fan would do, defend Rodgers and talk about his 66 yards rushing and 6 first downs. The guy had a very poor game by his standards, his Passer rating was 82% before his late interception. The offense was out of whack for 4 quarters, Rodger shares the blame in that, not all. He certainly can't be blamed for Kuhn fumbling and Grant's fumble, but several of those accounted drops were because Rodgers was not as accurate with his passes. He got Grant cranked on one dump off pass that was graded as a drop, but was thrown behind him.

The odds of your prediction get better when you drop bait into the forum. Like predicting the arrival of birds and then throwing birdseed out the window. Causation.

[mraynrand]

No I don't take glory in a Packer loss, just Packer fan falling off the ledge.

This from the guy who 'doesn't care' anymore. So classy you take glory in the disappointment of the fans in this forum. Here's an idea - why don't you leave and never come back?

[Tarlam!]

Here's an idea - why don't you leave and never come back?

Here's an even better idea: Speak for yourself! If you don't like what he has to say, put him on your ignore list. I don't like him rubbing my nose in it either. In fact, I hate some of his opinions, but I am very fond of the man.

[LEWCWA]

Here's an even better idea: Speak for yourself! If you don't like what he has to say, put him on your ignore list. I don't like him rubbing my nose in it either. In fact, I hate some of his opinions, but I am very fond of the man.


Tar--you are a very good guy, but your hate is only really hurting you.....enjoy the journey man....we are starting another one today!!! I love me some Bart(and never saw him play), love me some Dickey(good times as a young boy), Majik man was fun for a couple years, BF was awsome while it lasted and guess what we have 10 more years (hopefully) of watching one of the best in the business. Life is good in Packerland and to hate yesterday to prop up today really does little good.

[Tarlam!]

Thanks for the advice LEWCWA. I don't hate yesterday to prop up today. I am delighted that Rodgers has turmed out. Even if he hadn't it wouldn't change a thing about how I feel about Bert. I am not down on Bert for his 16 years of play. I am down on him because of who he turned out to be. There's a huge sense of loss for me; I never watched Starr or Hudson, but I still feel a great sense of pride knowing they played for the team I have an allegiance to. When I see footage of the Ice Bowl I feel great inside.

I adored Bert, bonehead that he was sometimes. I feel robbed of that adoration and it just doesn't sit well with me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY

[superfan]

Everything I learned about this Favre situation was that I took this game far too serious, it wasn't worth it. It is a game played by guys that don't give a rats ass what we think, They will put on their dog and pony show for us fans so we feel that they are really stand up guys and that they are just like us. Well they are not, they don't pay 250.00 bucks to come watch us do our job. As long as we buy their jerseys and buy their autographs they will put on their show for us because it lines their pockets. I don't have a problem with it, but I see it as what it is, a form of entertainment, and I can now watch a football game for the enjoyment of the game, and don't have stomach problems after the Packers lose, I can go to sleep after a loss without losing any sleep thinking about this interception or that fumble. I am entertained for 3 hours here and maybe 3 hours on monday night, but I don't swear at the tv anymore, dry heav in my friends driveway because the Packers lost the NFL championship game. It is refreshing.

I haven't always agreed with your takes over the last few years, but I think this new approach to the game is overall a good thing. I remember watching the Pack lose to the Bears with you and a few other PR posters at Stadium View several years ago, and at the time I would have voted you "Most Likely To Throw Beer And/Or Punch Out A Wall After A Bad Loss". It has to be better for your long term health to take the game less seriously.

I think some of it is just getting older, as I also no longer take these defeats as hard as I did when I was younger. And to a lesser extent I think the BF debacle has tempered my enthusiasm a bit as well. As much as I like Rodgers, I doubt I will ever be as "all in" as a fan for him or any other player as I was with BF for some of the same reasons you listed above.

Still a big time Packer fan, but my love of the Pack and all things NFL isn't quite as all encompassing as it was before.