Tweet
Favre was a badass in his prime....he was a blast to watch play the game and gave it his all. I think Rodgers is a better QB at this stage because he does not make the game killing throws that Favre has become known for...hopefully he never starts. He should just get better and better...especially with coaching consistency and a good GM like TT restocking the cupboards when guys like Driver start to drop off.
-
C.H.U.D. -
Can you imagine Rodgers with a good running game?C.H.U.D.Comment
-
-
His passing yards would go down. The rest? Maybe. Maybe not. His completion %, yards per attempt, TD to interception rate, and passer rating might actually improve.Originally posted by gbgary View Post"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
People talk about Rodgers as being one of the best QB's in the League. Favre was the best QB in the league for 3 straight years. I don't even think that matters because it shouldn't be a comparison between Favre and Rodgers, because Favre is #2 on the list, it should be between Rodgers and Starr. Even I concede that if Rodgers retired today and never took another NFL snap that he was more complete than Favre, there's no way that he beats Starr. Even if Rodgers has a better arm than Starr, Starr makes up for it in intelligence, guts and great games. So far Aaron Rodgers only has one signature game, the falcons game this year in the playoffs. Starr has the Ice bowl. Rodgers is not a legend. Sure, he's great, but he's not one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game.
The problem I'm having is I believe people are hedging their bets on what he could do instead of what he has done. He's shown flashes of greatness. He could be one of the best. If he continues on this road, you will be able to talk about him as one of the best, but he's just not there yet. He can be so much more dangerous and so much better than he is now. I think calling him *the* most complete QB in Packers history is pre-mature. A year from now, maybe two, I may agree with you. I say wait and see. If the NFL ended tomorrow, both Starr and Favre would have to rank in front of Rodgers IMO and even if I gave you Favre, Starr is still hand over fist more complete than Rodgers is.- Once again, adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.Comment
-
I'd say SBXLV was another signature game for Rodgers.Originally posted by Smeefers View PostWhen the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.Comment
-
Rodgers right now is as good as Favre was at his best. Better? Probably not, but as good. Obviously, Favre has had a better career because of longevity. However, unlike Favre I think Rodgers will sustain his elite caliber play beyond 3-4 years. After 1998 Favre was a consistently good QB, but only had a couple of years where he was truly great. Mainly because he regressed after Holmgren left and the bonehead mistakes came back into his play. The bonehead mistakes have never really been a part of Rodgers game, so I think it's likely that Rodgers will maintain elite play for longer than Favre did--provided he stays healthy. The huge knock on Favre was his less than stellar play in the playoffs for the second half of his career.
I don't feel qualified to judge Starr because I didn't see him play. It's impossible to compare Rodgers and Favre to Starr. Starr had the HUGE advantage of playing long before the free agency period. Teams like Green Bay, then Pittsburgh, and then San Francisco could keep Hall of Fame talent on their team for the entirety of their careers. It was much easier for him to be the QB of a dynasty--because dynasties were MUCH more likely to happen.Last edited by HarveyWallbangers; 02-14-2011, 01:35 PM."There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
You keep bouncing back and forth between looking at the careers of players and isolated segments of their careers. I'm not sure how to respond. You emphasize the three years of Favre's career but then dismiss discussions of Rodgers because its only three years.Originally posted by Smeefers View Post
The idea of the thread was not to debate career accomplishments, but the total package of abilities presented by the players. What talents do they offer? I have argued forever, including while Favre was in GB, that Starr was the best ever, and still argue that. I took a lot of flak for it 5 years ago, not so much now.
But, Starr had deficiencies. He didn't have the strongest arm in the world, and he didn't offer much of a running option. In the end, those didn't matter much and his career performance speaks for itself.
Right now, Rodgers doesn't show many deficiencies. His career performance has just started. I would argue he is a more complete QB than Starr was, but without a doubt Starr was more accomplished.
In my definitions "complete" is not the same as "best".Comment
-
i think all his stats would go down except completetion percentage and qb rating. the effect on the team though, in having a good running game, would be fantastic. more wins and by a larger amount of points.Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers View Post
Comment
-
I too believe that Rodgers is the perfect hybrid between Starr and Favre and may someday surpass them both and have his number on the famed Ring of Honor as well. He's also been blessed with an outstanding GM who can bring in great talent and complementary players. No QB can put up impressive seasons without a good surrounding cast. To argue who has more talent is meaningless as the talent levels from now and 14 yrs ago is so different. At the time, Favre's talent was very, very good and as Patler pointed out earlier, it was more heavily skewed towards the RB and TEs. Rodgers has better WRs. It's totally reflective of the different coaching styles of Holmgren and MM.All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!Comment
-
Originally posted by Cheesehead Craig View Post
AR's wrs aren't any better than bf's during his mvp years. sharp, brooks, freeman, chmura, jackson, rison, levens, bennett, etc.
good discussion about the qbs in this thread though.Comment
-
-
-
Bo Jackson never had a 1,000 yard NFL season. He was always injured. When he was healthy though, there are people who say he was the best player in the NFL and a better RB than Emmit Smith turned out to be.
Jackson bounced between baseball and football and was ultimately lost to injury. Emmit Smith had amazing durability, played for a really consistent team and put up monsterous numbers. Emmit was a great player and deserves all of those accolades, but when people say Bo Jackson was the better RB, if he was better on the field then he was better on the field regardless of who played longer, racked up more stats and avoided more injury. That's something completely different.
Favre's legacy is bigger. Favre lasted longer. Rodgers is better.Last edited by RashanGary; 02-14-2011, 02:33 PM.Formerly known as JustinHarrell.Comment
-
"Favre's legacy is bigger."
Let's ask Jenn Sterger about that."The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPackComment
Comment