What the Packers WILL (not should) do with Favre

[Scott Campbell]

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

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

[gbgary]

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

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

[hoosier]

What about Brent?

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

[channtheman]

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

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

[Gunakor]

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

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

[Gunakor]

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

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

[Gunakor]

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

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

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

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

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

[Upnorth]

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

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

[Upnorth]

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

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

[Deputy Nutz]

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

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

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

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

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

[Deputy Nutz]

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

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

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

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

[Fosco33]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gunakor]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gunakor]

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

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

[Scott Campbell]

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

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