Aaron Rodgers, the most complete Packer QB ever?

[Patler]

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

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

[vince]

Freeman was a raw rookie with one good arm.

Favre did have a tendency to throw his guys into trouble.

[RashanGary]

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

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



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

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

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

[Fritz]

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

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

AMAZING POST!!!!!!!!!

[Smeefers]

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

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

[vince]

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

[Smeefers]

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

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list%3A_Top_10_NFL_quarterbacks.html

[Patler]

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

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...rterbacks.html

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

[gbgary]

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

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

[bobblehead]

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

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...rterbacks.html

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

[Patler]

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

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