Rodgers >> Favre

[MOBB DEEP]

shouldnt we wait til the end of the season to compare favre 07 to aaron 08 tho? what if #12 has bad 2nd half?

Sure, but up to this point Rodgers has been better. Can we agree on that? And that's with Brett going up against Oakland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Miami. Brett's play has dropped off near the end of the year the last three seasons, so we'll see if he can turn that around.

You say this like it means anything! Lets reverse the roles. Brett QBing the Packers and Rodgers shipped to NY 3 weeks b4 the season. Who would have better numbers then.....Don't compare apples and oranges and pretend it means anything.

GREAT point

which is why i say the best available measure we hav is how far aaron takes what is basically the same team from 07. the favre detractors dont like using that for some reason. i remember several of them sayn pack will fare better with aaron. but once we lost THREE STARIGHT the excuses started flowing...

its about wins and lord favre has the MOST OF ALL TIME...

[Lurker64]

But it's not about "ALL TIME" it's about the last 9 weeks of 2008, possibly the playoffs, and 2009, 2010, etc.

[LP]

Does anyone here think that Rodgers shows as much potential after seven career starts as Favre did after his first seven starts?

[th87]

shouldnt we wait til the end of the season to compare favre 07 to aaron 08 tho? what if #12 has bad 2nd half?

Sure, but up to this point Rodgers has been better. Can we agree on that? And that's with Brett going up against Oakland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Miami. Brett's play has dropped off near the end of the year the last three seasons, so we'll see if he can turn that around.

You say this like it means anything! Lets reverse the roles. Brett QBing the Packers and Rodgers shipped to NY 3 weeks b4 the season. Who would have better numbers then.....Don't compare apples and oranges and pretend it means anything.

GREAT point

which is why i say the best available measure we hav is how far aaron takes what is basically the same team from 07. the favre detractors dont like using that for some reason. i remember several of them sayn pack will fare better with aaron. but once we lost THREE STARIGHT the excuses started flowing...

its about wins and lord favre has the MOST OF ALL TIME...

You're smarter than this.

There are a gazillion changing variables from season to season. Examples include injury, schedule, improvement of other teams, team chemistry, age catching up, rhythm, luck, etc.

Why do the Chargers appear to suck this year? Why did the 2001 Bears suddenly fall off the face of the Earth? Why did the 2002 Patriots suck? Maybe Jadakiss knows.

The fact is that these millions of variables were at play. Life and football are a LOT more complex than just replacing one component with another and expecting everything else to somehow be equal.

Maybe with Favre, we'd be 7-0. Maybe he'd somehow throw 15 TDs and no interceptions. Or maybe he'd fall on his face, and we'd be winless. Or maybe he gets injured.

There is simply no way to know. As I said, too many variables.

The only thing we do know? It's that Rodgers is playing extremely well thus far, and has the upside to improve further. Therefore, any debate regarding Favre's performance as a 2008 Packer is utterly useless, and amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation.

[pbmax]

I don't know. It seems like he's releasing higher and it's not his normal follow-through. Or it's my imagination.

Anyone know if changing systems changes your follow-through?

Zig, I haven't noticed a change in his release or motion, but I did notice that he doesn't have the same zip as in previous years on some throws. I think the JSOnline folks mentioned this as well.

If he has a throwing arm injury, that would explain it, obviously. He didn't have a full offseason workout, and age might be a factor as well. The most logical explanation is that he has taken a hit given the leaky state of the Jets line at times.

But remember the tired and sore arm from training camp, after Mangini had him throwing most of the camp snaps for two days? Mangini came out and said they would work on reducing the load, but that has happened one time before with the Packers, when he had tendonitis in his elbow.

And I always envisioned the genuflect motion to be more of a snap to attention. I could be wrong

[pbmax]

I honestly don't know if D Coordinators ever schemed against Brett. They'd try to put pressure on him, because he was bound to make mistakes....I donno, that's why I'm an Offensive Coordinator I guess, I know how to beat a defense, not create one.

I don't know how many Ds played eight in a box regularly vs Favre if the Packers had a capable wide receiver corp. McGinn has three scouts discussing this on JSO. There feeling is that teams aren't yet afraid of Rodgers and will play eight in the box more often.

I call this effect the Derek Loville effect. I think there are exactly two other people in the world who know what that means.

[Pugger]

The genuflect motion was something you did in a Catholic church - you bend one knee down towards the ground as you cross yourself (I went to St. Joe's Academy in Green Bay...boy, I'm dating myself here! )

[MJZiggy]

I call this effect the Derek Loville effect. I think there are exactly two other people in the world who know what that means.

Derek Loville and who?

I'd say they'll put 8 in the box until 2 things happen: Rodgers burns them with the pass or...ok, until Rodgers burns them a few more times.

If Favre had tendonitis would it keep him from fully extending his elbow? Or is that a flexing issue?

[Iron Mike]

I went to St. Joe's Academy in Green Bay...boy, I'm dating myself here!

Wasn't that the girls' school on Webster Ave.???

[Chevelle2]

Does anyone here think that Rodgers shows as much potential after seven career starts as Favre did after his first seven starts?

Rodgers first 7 starts > Favres first 7 starts

Rodgers at 24 > Favre at 24

Rodgers at 24 > Favre at 39

Rodgers 08 through 7 games > Favre 07 through 7 games

Favre alltime > Rodgers alltime

[falco]

Does anyone here think that Rodgers shows as much potential after seven career starts as Favre did after his first seven starts?

Rodgers first 7 starts > Favres first 7 starts

Rodgers at 24 > Favre at 24

Rodgers at 24 > Favre at 39

Rodgers 08 through 7 games > Favre 07 through 7 games

Favre alltime > Rodgers alltime

i'm not sure i'd agree to all those, but can't say I wouldn't either...too much time between now and then

[PackerTimer]

I don't think Rodgers will ever be as good as Favre was when he was in his prime. But it really doesn't matter, he doesn't have to be. If he even is 75% (I think he'll be better than that) of the QB Favre was in his prime, he'll be a very good starting QB for a number of years.

This whole Favre Rodgers thing doesn't mean all that much to me. I'm glad the Packers chose to move on. I felt that way this summer and I definitely feel that way now. Combining Favres years his with what Rodgers could bring us and we might have 25+ years of high quality QB play. How many teams can say that?

I don't think we had any better of a chance at the Super Bowl with Favre over Rodgers this year, let alone for the next ten years. There really was no choice this summer. I think the staff knew exactly what they had in AR and now we're all seeing it to.

[MOBB DEEP]

I don't think Rodgers will ever be as good as Favre was when he was in his prime. But it really doesn't matter, he doesn't have to be. If he even is 75% (I think he'll be better than that) of the QB Favre was in his prime, he'll be a very good starting QB for a number of years.

This whole Favre Rodgers thing doesn't mean all that much to me. I'm glad the Packers chose to move on. I felt that way this summer and I definitely feel that way now. Combining Favres years his with what Rodgers could bring us and we might have 25+ years of high quality QB play. How many teams can say that?

I don't think we had any better of a chance at the Super Bowl with Favre over Rodgers this year, let alone for the next ten years. There really was no choice this summer. I think the staff knew exactly what they had in AR and now we're all seeing it to.

good post

[gex]

I don't think Rodgers will ever be as good as Favre was when he was in his prime. But it really doesn't matter, he doesn't have to be. If he even is 75% (I think he'll be better than that) of the QB Favre was in his prime, he'll be a very good starting QB for a number of years.

This whole Favre Rodgers thing doesn't mean all that much to me. I'm glad the Packers chose to move on. I felt that way this summer and I definitely feel that way now. Combining Favres years his with what Rodgers could bring us and we might have 25+ years of high quality QB play. How many teams can say that?

I don't think we had any better of a chance at the Super Bowl with Favre over Rodgers this year, let alone for the next ten years. There really was no choice this summer. I think the staff knew exactly what they had in AR and now we're all seeing it to.

good post

2ND

[Harlan Huckleby]

the packers haven't had many good QBs. Starr. Favre. Lynn Dickey was good for a couple seasons. Many more duds in between. Rodgers is already a keeper.