Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's hard to say. Some people say Rodgers because he doesn't throw so many INTs. But since his one SB, he hasn't done much in big games, so his supposed better play doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Watching the Packers in the playoffs has just been disappointing.
I know Favre was a great QB but it seems every Packers fan would take Rodgers over Favre.
That's the "what have you done for me lately" fan with no memory....as of today, the resumes do not compare....will Rodgers ever get to Favres level, possibly....But as of today, Favre is clearly the choice. There are some people out there that want to put Rodgers as the greatest ever???? How can you be considered the greatest ever when you are just the 3rd best in your franchises history?
Last edited by Keep It Simple; 01-03-2016 at 01:11 PM..
To me Brett Favre is one step above Ryan Fitzpatrick. Fitz is kind of a poor man's Brett Favre. A lot of good but pretty much an equal amount of bad that generally seems to pop up at the wrong times.
Yea, Fitz is going to be a first ballot HOFer, multiple MVPs and considered one of the greatest to play the position
Rodgers is clearly the better passer. yet Favre seemed to carry teams in an intangible way. The difference between the 2008 Vikings and the 2009 Vikings - with the only significant change being Favre behind center during the latter season - was remarkable. It's a common argument that Favre took too many chances. But taking those chances is how he turned mediocre teams into ones that contested for the league championship.
Still, given the longevity of Favre's career - 18 full seasons as a starter - you'd expect more than one title in that span. And Rodgers, for all his differences, may be following the same course. He has one ring. But he's also the only quarterback to guide a team to a 15-1 record, then go one-and-done in the postseason. It wouldn't be surprising if, like Favre, he has a long career and a lot of stats and just the one ring, too.
One final point of comparison is worth mentioning - durability. Favre was always there, starting every game from September 1992 until December 2010. Rodgers isn't very fragile as far as quarterbacks go, but he did miss half of the 2013 season, and went down with a broken ankle in 2007 - that ended up not mattering, as Favre was still the starter, but it does speak to the fact that Rodhers is not as durable as was Favre.
But since his one SB, he hasn't done much in big games, so his supposed better play doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Watching the Packers in the playoffs has just been disappointing.
It's a team game. Even if you say the win or loss is all on Rodgers then you can still find the stats or the big game wins from the Packers when he played.
Just a few recent big games off the top of my head
vs Bears week 17, 2013 Division on the line
vs Lions week 17, 2015 Division on the line
vs Cowboys early 2015
vs Patriots 2015
Playoffs
7-5 playoff record. That's better than most teams regular season % this year.
I've seen every playoff loss & never recall a game where I thought the loss was mostly due to Rodgers. Could he have played better? Probably. Most the losses went like this -- Kaepernick running for 500 yards on our defense . . . the defense giving up 51 points to the Cardinals in an OT 51-45 loss . . . offensive play caller taking the ball out of Rodgers hand & picking all run plays on consecutive series when leading the Seahawks . . . & the Giants coming out of nowhere & completely dominating every playoff teams offensive & defensive lines. Maybe Rodgers could have played some DE or guard to stop the Giants that year?
Oh and a super bowl MVP and 2 regular season MVP awards.
Both Favre & Rodgers are great QBs, but you have to give Rodgers a little respect. Tonight, with another division on the line, there is no other current QB I'd rather have starting tonight than him. That's even with Rodgers having a down 2nd half of the season (for him).
Last edited by everwinter; 01-03-2016 at 02:03 PM..
Maybe. I don't care about the Packers. I don't follow them too closely. But every time I see them lose in the playoffs, I don't get too impressed by him. I haven't seen anything out of him in years that makes me say "wow, this team is bound to go win the Super Bowl." That's something I did see out of him in 2010.
So is he better than Favre? Possibly, but it's way too early to say.
Good debate.. and yeah, this is how I view it as well.. It's kinda' premature to compare resume's
If we're just going by eyeball test, I could subjectively say Rodgers looks like the more complete package.. But it's hard to compare complete resume's, bcuz Rodgers is still mid-career. Favre accumulated much higher, more impressive total #s.
Some posters are trying to diminish the quality of Favre's cumulative numbers; suggesting racking up numbers due to longevity is a cheap thing (). Durability & Availability are critical assets in pro sports, especially at the QB position..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
