LeRoy: Brett Better Than Aaron

[Little Whiskey]

That is what I'm hoping for as well.

Favre’s statistics in the playoffs through 97’ look like this: 3096 yards 23 tds 10 ints. 9-4 record, 2 superbowl appearances and one win superbowl win. You can't say he played bad up until this point can you? We have no idea if Rodgers will continue on and play like Montana in the postseason for the rest of his career or if you will fall off like Favre did. That’s why until Rodgers has more playoff success, ala more titles, Favre still has and will always have the edge.

Those first few playoff years before the superbowl year were pretty ugly losses to Dallas. I remember one year when Madden was blabbering about the crown of the field being to high in TX stadium that was throwing favre off. every one of his passes seemed high. but maybe he was "chinged up".

favre took more chances and made a lot of big plays by improvising. Rodgers is much more surgical like. Favre would make a play when something wasn't there. (this also lead to alot of his mistakes) whereas rodgers doesn't take that chance. he throws it away or dumps it off, (or takes a sack). he eliminates the mistakes.

the packers now have a game manager that can actually win you games. Its tough to remember the last game that Rodgers has cost the packers.

[Guiness]

I like the current crop of WR's as much as anyone, but calling them 4 #1 guys? LOL, You've been dipping into the Kool-aid a bit too deep ND72!

[Brandon494]

You guys crack me up but the answer is simple.

Rodgers is the better QB because he can make all the plays Brett could make yet does not make all the bone head mistakes. Rodgers had 6 INTs all season, Farve threw 6 in one playoff game against the Rams. Farve put up great stats but he was not clutch in big games. I'll take Rodgers any day of the week over Farve.

[SkinBasket]

Interesting point, because Butler openly and publicly campaigned for a coaching-type job for several years, and nothing came of it in GB or anywhere else.

Didn't he have a very short-lived PR type job with them? It seems to me they parted after just a couple months, with neither side saying much about it. Or am I thinking about the wrong former player?

Nope. You got the right guy.

[jdrats]

Listen, you said that Favre never had the talent Rodgers had. I'm not disagreeing with that on a whole.

But individually I still say that Sterling was more talented than anything the Packers have now. He led the league in receptions, receiving yards, receiving touchdowns several times and was in the Top 5 in 6 of his 7 years in the league. Sterling today would still be at or near the top of the league in all those categories. And that is all I was contesting. Favre wasn't bereft of talent either.

No argument here on Sterling Sharpe's talents. He should be included in any conversation of the all time best wide recievers. It is a shame that his career was cut short by injury in 1994. All of us Packers fans are left with, "What could have been..." had Sharpe been able to play a normal length career.

That said, Sharpe did leave in 94. For his MVP and Superbowl years Farve did have a powerhouse defense and a dominating offensive line, but he never had a another #1 WR near that caliber nor did he ever have a receiving corps with the quality and depth that Rodgers has today. There was good offensive balance under Holmgren with WR/TE/RBs all as quality pass catchers, but still not near the depth we have now in our top 6. I've always felt that Farve did more for the careers of his WRs than they ever did for him, with the exception of Sterling Sharpe of course. It is to the shame of the Packers organization that through the combination of some bad luck (i.e. Javon Walker injury/contract blow-up, Murphy injury) and neglect that they never stocked the offense with the kind of receivers he deserved through most of the second half of his years here(and NO I'm not referring to Randy Moss here! .

These "who was better?" arguments in general (Montana-Elway? Elway-Marino? et al) have always seemes pretty pointless to me and especially so in this case. I agree with some of the other posters here. I'm both proud and amazed that this smallest market in the league team has incredibly gone from one "Best in the League" QB to yet another "Best in the League" QB. Outside the unfortunately messy transition I've enjoyed every minute of it. And I love it even more when I think of all the QBS the Bears have gone through during the last 20 years!

[smuggler]

Relative to the rest of the passers in the league at the time, Brett has never had a season as good as Aaron has had this year.

[mraynrand]

There's a reason the organization wanted nothing to do with Butler after he retired and he kept skulking about the stadium begging for something to do. The guy's a retard. A talented retard, but definitely a retard. Christ, even Edgar Bennet could get a job with the team after his playing days were over.

Take away the invective, and I mostly agree with this. I heard Butler talking around about 2003 to 2005 about coaching, and even though he wanted to do it, he admitted that when he discovered just how much he was expected to work, it became less interesting to him. He's always wanted some pretty low key, higher profile kind of spot where he can be the 'friendly face of the Green Bay Packers.' He - like most former players - is mostly stuck in his era, and sees things in that light. It's no surprise that he likes Favre better, even though most of the facts argue against him.

[mraynrand]

You guys crack me up but the answer is simple.

Rodgers is the better QB because he can make all the plays Brett could make yet does not make all the bone head mistakes. Rodgers had 6 INTs all season, Farve threw 6 in one playoff game against the Rams. Farve put up great stats but he was not clutch in big games. I'll take Rodgers any day of the week over Farve.

Right on the money, as ususal.

[ND72]

I would have loved to see how Favre would have developed if Holmgren had stayed. Ray Rhodes year really hurt Favre's growth as a QB since he just let him go...which is funny since McCarthy was his QB coach that year. But there is no doubt that Favre took a huge step back with Rhodes, then Sherman brought him back in, but towards the end was doing the same thing in letting the old gun slinger be the gun slinger. Holmgren would let him sling it, but under his direction. And if he wandered off his direction, Holmgren would call him on it and keep him accountable. Many people later on would not hold Favre accountable. I still remember coming back from a game in 2004, granted, not a good team, but Favre was HORRIBLE in that game, and truly was the reason GB lost that day (sorry I don't remember who against, not the point)...but on the ride home, the post game guys were very up front about Favre being the downfall that day, and some lady called him yelling at the post game guys for saying anything bad about Favre....why? When Rodgers had bad days I'll say bad about him. BUT, Rodgers is very much accountable about himself, maybe more than needed...Favre would very rarely stand up and say this was all on me.

[ND72]

You guys crack me up but the answer is simple.

Rodgers is the better QB because he can make all the plays Brett could make yet does not make all the bone head mistakes. Rodgers had 6 INTs all season, Farve threw 6 in one playoff game against the Rams. Farve put up great stats but he was not clutch in big games. I'll take Rodgers any day of the week over Farve.

UGH....I had erased that game from my memory. disgusting...

[Smidgeon]

No argument here on Sterling Sharpe's talents. He should be included in any conversation of the all time best wide recievers. It is a shame that his career was cut short by injury in 1994. All of us Packers fans are left with, "What could have been..." had Sharpe been able to play a normal length career.

That said, Sharpe did leave in 94. For his MVP and Superbowl years Farve did have a powerhouse defense and a dominating offensive line, but he never had a another #1 WR near that caliber nor did he ever have a receiving corps with the quality and depth that Rodgers has today. There was good offensive balance under Holmgren with WR/TE/RBs all as quality pass catchers, but still not near the depth we have now in our top 6. I've always felt that Farve did more for the careers of his WRs than they ever did for him, with the exception of Sterling Sharpe of course. It is to the shame of the Packers organization that through the combination of some bad luck (i.e. Javon Walker injury/contract blow-up, Murphy injury) and neglect that they never stocked the offense with the kind of receivers he deserved through most of the second half of his years here(and NO I'm not referring to Randy Moss here! .

These "who was better?" arguments in general (Montana-Elway? Elway-Marino? et al) have always seemes pretty pointless to me and especially so in this case. I agree with some of the other posters here. I'm both proud and amazed that this smallest market in the league team has incredibly gone from one "Best in the League" QB to yet another "Best in the League" QB. Outside the unfortunately messy transition I've enjoyed every minute of it. And I love it even more when I think of all the QBS the Bears have gone through during the last 20 years!

With this I agree. In my opinion, I like the QB that is most likely to win the team the next super bowl. Now it's Rodgers. Then it was Favre. The comparison about "who is better" is for pundits and fans and completely irrelevant. I think that them both being the best QB in the league or Top 3 is more than remarkable. Especially in a division with the Bears, Lions, and Vikings who are all still trying to find theirs (Stafford's good, just not Top 3).

[ND72]

With this I agree. In my opinion, I like the QB that is most likely to win the team the next super bowl. Now it's Rodgers. Then it was Favre. The comparison about "who is better" is for pundits and fans and completely irrelevant. I think that them both being the best QB in the league or Top 3 is more than remarkable. Especially in a division with the Bears, Lions, and Vikings who are all still trying to find theirs (Stafford's good, just not Top 3).

Anyone else hear Marshall Faulk say Aaron Rodgers is not a top 5 or elite level QB...because "Matt Flynn did what Aaron Rodgers can do"

[mraynrand]

Anyone else hear Marshall Faulk say Aaron Rodgers is not a top 5 or elite level QB...because "Matt Flynn did what Aaron Rodgers can do"

Sure, and by that logic, Brees is also not top 5 or elite, since Flynn played at least as well as Brees against the same Detroit secondary.

[Packers4Glory]

again comparing different era's in football is using faulty logic. the game is way different today than it was when Favre was in his prime. The NFL has slowly changed the game to exploit the popularity of the most popular players in the NFL...which are QB's. It's not much of an accident there are so many high flying offense in this yr's playoffs and such bad defenses.

[smuggler]

Funny. Before the 2010 season, Marshall Faulk was the first to declare Rodgers the best QB in the league, before it was fashionable. I remember some of the other analysts laughing at him.