New Silverstein article - Favre Vs. Rodgers in their prime - WHO is better?

[retailguy]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/134041253.html

I found this article interesting, but a bit slanted imo. Comparing a 16 game stretch as opposed to a 16 game season seems a bit disingeneous to me. I think Rodgers is having a better season so far than Favre ever did, but Favre still was a great one for an extended period of time.

What say you?

[vince]

I agree. Favre was great in his time for sure, though hand-picking his best stretch to measure against what Rodgers is doing now is stacking the deck. If you look at their first x games starting up to this point in Rodgers' career you get a vasty different picture. Plus, the current 16 game stretch Rodgers is on may not (probably won't) end up being the best of his career. With every game that comes, his last 16 gets better and better.

[Freak Out]

Favre had a crazy run in 96-97 but lets wait until we see how the rest of this race goes. Rodgers is on fucking fire right now.

[RashanGary]

Very similar. I always remembered Favre as being the guy who could do the impossible. I think after 30 years of mostly aweful QB play and very few wins, Packer fans were ready to immortalize the first guy who was great.

Looking at that video Silverstein posted, I'd say Rodgers looks like the better QB (just the eye test) The way Favre was hyped, outside of a 10 or 15 plays in 20 years where he did something out of control and insane (that actually worked), Favre doesn't look as good as AR. And AR is steadier, a guy you can trust more and a guy who leads better by example.

[gbgary]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[RashanGary]

Favre always said, when he was a kid and in college, he loved to force it into double coverage. Something about the tough throw got tripped his trigger.

Favre Edges:

Tougher

Longevity (No way AR comes even close to the # of games Favre played at that level)

More likely to make that impossible throw into double/triple coverage in the last 10 seconds of a game (he had a lot of practice doing it when he shouldn't have)

Tempo.

Better at short, tight passes

Better at drawing in rushers and throwing the touch screen around or over guys that are right on him


AR edges:

Accuracy

Decision making

Running

Leadership

Character

Work ethic

Willingness to do what works over and over and over and over without having to take the spotlight with something stupid

Way, way way better down the field

Better at the line of scrimmage with play selection and chemistry with his guys (he actually works with them during the offseason workouts)








Both great players, but more likely to win the game?

Rogers

[RashanGary]

AR is more like Tiger Woods. He gets that lead and then over and over and over just makes the highest percentage decision until his opponents were left in the dust.

Favre is like Phil. Charismatic, loves the tough shot, loves to improvise. . . . Never won as many as he should have with his talent.

[vince]

AR is more like Tiger Woods. He gets that lead and then over and over and over just makes the highest percentage decision until his opponents were left in the dust.

Favre is like Phil. Charismatic, loves the tough shot, loves to improvise. . . . Never won as many as he should have with his talent.

Not bad, although off the field all bets are off.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't mind taking a stretch that crosses two seasons, but there were two problems I had with the article.

1) They made the cutoff for Rodgers the Detroit game last year. Yet, he was on quite the run before that game. He had completed over 70% of his passes for over 9 ypa with 11 TDs and 0 interceptions in the previous 3 games. It seems this run should have stretched 3 more games. It might have been harder to find a 19 game stretch where Favre played like this. 16 games is easier. Rodgers is on a ridiculous 19 games run and it just keeps getting extended.
2) He didn't mention rushing yards--even though he mentioned sacks. Rodgers gets the nod in rushing yards.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Not bad, although off the field all bets are off.

I was going to say the same thing. On the course, it's a good comparison. Off the course, Rodgers is more like Phil and Brett more like Tiger.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Favre had a crazy run in 96-97 but lets wait until we see how the rest of this race goes. Rodgers is on fucking fire right now.

Favre was actually ridiculous from mid 95 through 96. I think he won the 97 MVP on reputation. Still good, but not at the level prior. Similar to a few years after the MVP run. Sanders probably should have won the MVP that year. I actually think Favre was better in 2007 than 1997.

[Fosco33]

Fun to watch the '95 TDs. Things I miss/remembered:

- the 99 yard TD by Brooks - wow - he was fast!
- Favre sure was more mobile in his younger days (duh)
- Levens had his fair share of TD receptions that year
- I miss the screen against aggressive blitzing defenses. I don't know if we run less of them or if they're less effective... just feels that way

[Fosco33]

Favre was actually ridiculous from mid 95 through 96. I think he won the 97 MVP on reputation. Still good, but not at the level prior. Similar to a few years after the MVP run. Sanders probably should have won the MVP that year. I actually think Favre was better in 2007 than 1997.

I thought Favre shared it one of those years (97?) with Barry.

[vince]

Favre was actually ridiculous from mid 95 through 96. I think he won the 97 MVP on reputation. Still good, but not at the level prior. Similar to a few years after the MVP run. Sanders probably should have won the MVP that year. I actually think Favre was better in 2007 than 1997.

Sanders and Favre were co-MVP's in '97.

[sheepshead]

My son comments, that while Rodgers is awesome, Favre was more fun to watch. More exciting, that spin move and launching it down field. The bullets seemed to whiz faster. (not at all sure about that). Probably just Brett's style of play. I do know, I havent popped on and cursed at the TV like I did so many times for Favre.