Better With Rodgers Than With Favre?

[texaspackerbacker]

DAMN IT DAMN IT DAMN IT, My third option in the poll--"Significantly better off/more likely to win" isn't showing up. If a moderator or whoever can fix this, I'd appreciate it. If not, just delete the damn poll.

Going into the season, some people thought/said the Packers were in for a nosedive with Rodgers instead of Favre. Some others thought/said the Packers would be decent--about the same or not much worse with Rodgers instead of Favre.

I thought/said several times, the Packers would be substantially BETTER with Rodgers at QB than with Favre. I think last night's game supports that. I think if Favre had been the QB, he would have failed miserably against the fierce Cowboys pass rush--at least as badly as last season. I also think Favre over the course of the season--in his present condition, greatest QB in NFL history not withstanding, would screw up several games to the point of losing them--which Rodgers will NOT. I further think that Rodgers is every bit as likely as the current Favre to make big plays and actually take the bull by the horns and WIN games.

Here we are, three games in--Favre's third tonight. What do ya'all think?

[Jimx29]

no one taking the bait?

[mraynrand]

I'd prefer an option that said: "Impossible to determine" since it really is - I mean who the hell in this forum knows whether Rodgers made the 'right' reads and changed plays and protections to match or whether Favre would have 'chucked one up' for a score or an INT? Impossible to determine.

[GrnBay007]

Ask MM.

Is he going to let him air it out more often? ...or stick with the dink and dunk in the middle of the field with 5 min. left and more than a TD behind.

ARod can make the throws.....will MM let him?

[packerbacker1234]

Re: Better With Rodgers Than With Favre?

I thought/said several times, the Packers would be substantially BETTER with Rodgers at QB than with Favre.

Just wondering, how did you think so? An unproven player replacing the 2nd most valuable player not just at his position, but in the entire NFL from the season prior doesn't not add up to anyone thinking we would be substantially BETTER. While I can understand arguments that this season, the packers might be slightly a better team with AR then with Favre, substantially better is a very, very, very big stretch.

I think last night's game supports that. I think if Favre had been the QB, he would have failed miserably against the fierce Cowboys pass rush--at least as badly as last season.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Didn't Rodger's fail last night to win? So, your saying worst case last night, we still lose with Favre? So, last night game supports a theory that either way, we would of lost. Interesting, as it doesn't provide any proof either way if things would of changed with Favre back there. Yes, favre has horrible career numbers against the cowboys, even when he was the best QB to walk the planet. Yes, he may have taken more shots and more risky throws to get us points. But guess what, we saw the game manager, no turnover, play of Rodgers, and that didn't work either.

Also, Favre didn't "fail" last season against the "fierce" pass rush. I don't think he even got sacked. He just went deep way too many times, way too early in the game, to covered guys and it cost us. Of course, one could go the other way and say the refs cost us by not giving Harris the int, but that's niether here nor there. This is a what if situation, and according to you, we would of lost with either guy at the helm.

I also think Favre over the course of the season--in his present condition, greatest QB in NFL history not withstanding, would screw up several games to the point of losing them--which Rodgers will NOT.

Can you provide any proof, other then a guessing game? Because, the last full season Favre had with the pack, he went 13 - 3 and got to a NFC championship game, arguably, because of how he performed all season long, including a down right phenominal game in the snow against seattle. Of the three losses last year, the only arguement you can make is Favre can't win in Dallas, and can't play in really cold temperature's anymore. There is no proof at this time that in his present condition with the current packer roster that he would cost us any more games then he did last season.

In fact, one could argue how Rodger's played last night cost us the game, but I'll get more into that in another thread.

I further think that Rodgers is every bit as likely as the current Favre to make big plays and actually take the bull by the horns and WIN games.

Name we one game Rodgers HAD TO MAKE PLAYS TO WIN. Just one. I am waiting... oh your throwing Minnesota in my face? Ok, I'll give you one TD pass was downright "out of no where" and unexpected, but that was early. What did he do the rest of the game? Don't read me the "he qb sneaked one in too you know". Please, that's giving him undeserved credit. A FB dive would of just as easily gotten in. He didn't beat Minnesota, his team did.

Wait, there was THE LIONS. OMG, DID YOU SEE HIS THREE TD's!

Yes, I did. All in the first half. How many in the second half? How many punts in the second half? How again where they put away? How? Oh yeah, Defense scoring 14 points. Ahh, ok, Rodgers WON THE GAME for us.

Then, there is Dallas. Tight game. Really, for 80% of the game anyways, there was a realistic chance that we COULD win. Of course, save a late QB sneak when the game was out of reach, Rodger's did nothing. Yeah, 290 yards. Sure, no turnovers. Yeah, it's true, he didn't "cost" us the game by making mistakes that more then likely, favre would. Although, he also didn't make anything happen either, and really failed to put any points on the board what so ever. Or, lest we forget that there was a fumble involving rodgers that spotted the cowboy's three points, and one of our scores (two really) were set up by defensive turnovers. Then again, Rodger's played well enough to win right? I mean, he had almost 300 yards!

Give me a break - Rodgers played a bad game last night, even if the stat line isn't horrible. He misfired on handful of open guys, and seemingly any pass over 10 yards to the right side of the field was going to go 8 yards over every WR in the area, open or not. Ok, Rodgers had a deep play to Driver. Noting, driver was wide open. What about his deep ball to jennings in a previous game then? Oh, that was a one on one jump ball, and jennings won. Ok.

Here we are, three games in--Favre's third tonight. What do ya'all think?

Although it may seem obvious what I think (having a better chance of doing something this year with Favre then not) it's not necessarily the case. I have been impressed with the way rodger's has handled things, but he has done nothing more then what I expected. I knew going in he wont cost us games with turnovers - but I also was seemingly the only person saying I need to see Rodgers actually have to win a game first.

So far, he hasn't, and is 0 - 2 in his opportunities to do so (dallas last year, dallas this year, ironicaly). Game was on the line with 9 minutes to go and Rodgers couldn't get it done (just like he didn't all game). Last year everyone praised how he did against dallas, yet with 7 minutes to go the ball was in his hands with a chance to win the game - and again he did nothing.

Just saying - I am cheering for Favre and Rodger's, but at least I know favre can WIN games, and CAN PLAY in the big games and win (seatle in the playoffs last year, Chargers, ont he road at Denver, ) just as long ago as last season. I just don't have a book open on anything that Rodger's has done in crunchtime to win football games.

Isn't his fault, but it was the same thing at Cal. In the big games, everything on the line late, he consistently came up short. Honestly, I think it's the reason he fell so far in the draft. Not mechanics, not arm strength, not attitude, but play in the big games. It was the same thing with Brohm, and he was dropping to (heismen favorite, and most likely a 1st rounder if he came out the year before).

Meh - things change. He has played well, but it's hard for me to believe a Super Bowl can happen unless he doesn't have the win the game for us to get there (aka, were just that much better then everyone else).

[MOBB DEEP]

WOW

[MOBB DEEP]

Ask MM.

Is he going to let him air it out more often? ...or stick with the dink and dunk in the middle of the field with 5 min. left and more than a TD behind.

ARod can make the throws.....will MM let him?

Im disapointed in mm's halftime adjustment skills thus far...

[packerbacker1234]

Ask MM.

Is he going to let him air it out more often? ...or stick with the dink and dunk in the middle of the field with 5 min. left and more than a TD behind.

ARod can make the throws.....will MM let him?

Im disapointed in mm's halftime adjustment skills thus far...

The ironic thing is, Arod DID have the opportunity to make the throws last game, or did we forget about 6 failed pass attempts on third down? Rodger's had the opportunities - he just didn't get it done.

Sure, I agree, MM didn't make the best halftime adjustment's in the world, but it's not like he "took the ball out of Rodger's hands". Correct me if I am wrong, but did we spend most of the second half throwing? He had chances, he just didn't perform.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Leoroy Butler:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797644

I saw the game in person and I played 12 years so I want people to know that, from what I saw, Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tony Romo. Based on throwing the ball in certain areas. The interception Romo threw to Collins and some of these other passes and the way he moves around, Aaron is a much better quarterback. Aaron doesn't put his team in those kinds of situations. When you look at Romo's stats, you'll see those long passes and those glamour things. Aaron's stats are OK, too, but if he gets the opportunity to throw 40 or 50 times a game, he's going to be good. No interceptions for three straight weeks? I'm excited to get this Dallas game over with. You want to play your best football in January.

[packerbacker1234]

Leoroy Butler:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797644

I saw the game in person and I played 12 years so I want people to know that, from what I saw, Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tony Romo. Based on throwing the ball in certain areas. The interception Romo threw to Collins and some of these other passes and the way he moves around, Aaron is a much better quarterback. Aaron doesn't put his team in those kinds of situations. When you look at Romo's stats, you'll see those long passes and those glamour things. Aaron's stats are OK, too, but if he gets the opportunity to throw 40 or 50 times a game, he's going to be good. No interceptions for three straight weeks? I'm excited to get this Dallas game over with. You want to play your best football in January.

Ironic. AR threw 39 passes, one short of 40.

He was 22/39.

The ball was in his hands most the game. It's also ironic that he says "if you look at the stat line, Romo has all the glamour numbers, but he does have an int to collins. Rodger's didn't throw an interception". Who won the game? Which QB put points on the board?

I would of gladly took one pick last night if it would of got us two TD's.

Look, I respect Leroy Butler, but he is a defensive player. He just knows Romo is a guy that can be picked, and AR isn't, and he bases everything on that.

[ThunderDan]

Leoroy Butler:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797644

I saw the game in person and I played 12 years so I want people to know that, from what I saw, Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tony Romo. Based on throwing the ball in certain areas. The interception Romo threw to Collins and some of these other passes and the way he moves around, Aaron is a much better quarterback. Aaron doesn't put his team in those kinds of situations. When you look at Romo's stats, you'll see those long passes and those glamour things. Aaron's stats are OK, too, but if he gets the opportunity to throw 40 or 50 times a game, he's going to be good. No interceptions for three straight weeks? I'm excited to get this Dallas game over with. You want to play your best football in January.

Ironic. AR threw 39 passes, one short of 40.

He was 22/39.

The ball was in his hands most the game. It's also ironic that he says "if you look at the stat line, Romo has all the glamour numbers, but he does have an int to collins. Rodger's didn't throw an interception". Who won the game? Which QB put points on the board?

I would of gladly took one pick last night if it would of got us two TD's.

Look, I respect Leroy Butler, but he is a defensive player. He just knows Romo is a guy that can be picked, and AR isn't, and he bases everything on that.

I trust Leroy's opinion more than yours.

You just can't aford to turn the football over and expect to win games consistantly.

[RIPackerFan]

To me it looks like Arod is a game manager.

With a good team (which I think the Pack is), its a wash. I don't think Arod will lift the team and win it himself, but I also don't think he is going to throw 4 ints in a game.

With an average team - Favre makes them better.

With a good team - they are even.

With a great team, Arod is better.

[Rastak]

I think the Pack made the right move in installing Rodgers as QB. I'm not sure about trading Favre and not keeping him as a backup wasn't the better move. I'd have to defer to the guys who know....M3 and TT. They can better judge the locker room factor obviously.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's good to read Leroy Butler say that. And Romo, of course, in the current state of their respective careers is better than Favre.

[packerbacker1234]

Leoroy Butler:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797644

I saw the game in person and I played 12 years so I want people to know that, from what I saw, Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tony Romo. Based on throwing the ball in certain areas. The interception Romo threw to Collins and some of these other passes and the way he moves around, Aaron is a much better quarterback. Aaron doesn't put his team in those kinds of situations. When you look at Romo's stats, you'll see those long passes and those glamour things. Aaron's stats are OK, too, but if he gets the opportunity to throw 40 or 50 times a game, he's going to be good. No interceptions for three straight weeks? I'm excited to get this Dallas game over with. You want to play your best football in January.

Ironic. AR threw 39 passes, one short of 40.

He was 22/39.

The ball was in his hands most the game. It's also ironic that he says "if you look at the stat line, Romo has all the glamour numbers, but he does have an int to collins. Rodger's didn't throw an interception". Who won the game? Which QB put points on the board?

I would of gladly took one pick last night if it would of got us two TD's.

Look, I respect Leroy Butler, but he is a defensive player. He just knows Romo is a guy that can be picked, and AR isn't, and he bases everything on that.

I trust Leroy's opinion more than yours.

You just can't aford to turn the football over and expect to win games consistantly.

Well, When Romo has a bad streak, let me know. He is a guy that gets picked a lot (like favre), yet he has one of the best winning percentages of anyone over the last two seasons.

Oh, and maybe you heard of a certain #4. Leads the NFL all time in ints - Pretty sure he won consistently. You know, winningest QB of all time and stuff.