Favre v. Rodgers

[Infamous]

Who do posters feel is the better runner/scrambler? I wonder what the stats look like.....but im more interested in posters' opinions about aesthetics, timeliness, and effectiveness...Aaron looks more fluid and would probably beat brett in a foot race...Favre more dramatic lik underhand toss in snow while stumbling...Favre's superbowl TD jaunt was basically a game-clincher psychologically and gave me goose bumps!!

[denverYooper]

Rodgers.

It's not even close.

[red]

i still have night terrors of favre trying to run with the ball, it just never looked natural

[Pugger]

Rodgers.

It's not even close.

Favre was the ultimate warrior and gave it his all. He was fun to watch and helped resurrect this franchise from the dregs. Folks will talk about his arm strength for years to come. His Achilles' heel was he was prone to throw INTs, especially in big games. The Majik Man was special too and I will always wonder how his career would have turned out if he didn't get hurt.

But Aaron is the whole package. He has the arm, the legs and the brains. He is loathe to turn the ball over and will carve up defenses like a surgeon if he has enough time in the pocket. Look how this team is reeling with him injured. Some consider him the best player in the game today, not just QB and if he continues to play like he is he could very well end up the best QB in NFL history.

[Joemailman]

Rodgers was a better runner. Favre was better at avoiding getting sacked in the pocket. Not sure what the poll is looking for.

[MJZiggy]

Rodgers.

It's not even close.

This. Rodgers does not throw underhand in the snow, because he can (and does) get those couple yards with his feet.

[George Cumby]

Favre was breathtaking in his ability to avoid the rush and make something happen. He was also breathtaking in his ability to cock it all up.

As I've said before, I think Rodgers spent his time well as the understudy well: he picked up the good Brett but didn't learn the bad Brett.

[pbmax]

Young Favre simply refused to be taken down behind the LOS. It was like watching a bigger, less nimble Tarkenton back there. Looked like a game of keep away.

[Patler]

As a runner? Rodgers #1, Majik #2 and Favre #3. When Favre was at his most productive as a runner, he too often ran when he didn't need to. For quite a few of his early years he looked for one receiver (usually Sharp), and if he didn't like what he saw he would take off running. He would take off even when protection was good and there were other receivers open. He just didn't see them. It was a big criticism of Holmgren's when he would offer critiques of the young Favre. The best thing for Favre's development might have been Sharpe getting injured.

[Joemailman]

As a runner? Rodgers #1, Majik #2 and Favre #3. When Favre was at his most productive as a runner, he too often ran when he didn't need to. For quite a few of his early years he looked for one receiver (usually Sharp), and if he didn't like what he saw he would take off running. He would take off even when protection was good and there were other receivers open. He just didn't see them. It was a big criticism of Holmgren's when he would offer critiques of the young Favre. The best thing for Favre's development might have been Sharpe getting injured.

Your post got me looking at Sharpe's career stats. In his three years with Favre, (1992-1994) he caught 314 passes for 3854 yards and 42 TD's. Makes you wonder what his career numbers would have been like if he hadn't had to retire at age 29. You're probably right that Favre became better when he had to spread the ball around. It didn't happen right away though as in 1995 Robert Brooks had a season comparable to Sharpe's best numbers with 102-1497-13.

[Patler]

Your post got me looking at Sharpe's career stats. In his three years with Favre, (1992-1994) he caught 314 passes for 3854 yards and 42 TD's. Makes you wonder what his career numbers would have been like if he hadn't had to retire at age 29.

Michael Irvin and Sterling Sharpe were drafted the same year. Until he was forced to retire, Sharpe led Irvin in career stats, partly because Irvin had missed some time in his early seasons.

[bobblehead]

As a runner? Rodgers #1, Majik #2 and Favre #3. When Favre was at his most productive as a runner, he too often ran when he didn't need to. For quite a few of his early years he looked for one receiver (usually Sharp), and if he didn't like what he saw he would take off running. He would take off even when protection was good and there were other receivers open. He just didn't see them. It was a big criticism of Holmgren's when he would offer critiques of the young Favre. The best thing for Favre's development might have been Sharpe getting injured.

I was young, but I thought Majik was a much better runner than Rodgers.

[Tony Oday]

Majik was the best ever.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd take Rodgers at his best over Favre. Easily. He gives you what Favre does... minus the turnovers. I'd take Favre's career at this point, but Rodgers will surpass him with longevity.

[pbmax]

Majik had good legs but I just don't remember it being as productive as Rodgers. Wasn't paying too much attention as I would be watching the AFC games at the games at the same time if Browns were on.

Don't want to hijack the thread but .... The difference between players at the same time plays a role in my memory too. At one point, didn't Dilweg beat Majik out? But when Anthony was in there, he looked more poised and less likely to do something dumb than Majik. But Dilweg was the kind of QB that would no do anything dumb and would score a lot of punts. If there was a holding, he never converted.

Majik might hurt you other ways, but there was a chance his offense would beat the penalty or convert unlikely 3rd downs and get into scoring position.