So I said it two years ago...

[seanbrock 1,684]

Time to revisit this discussion. I will take Aaron Rodgers over Brett Favre at ANY point in his career. I honestly don't see anyone disagreeing at this point but idk. We'll see.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

The mid 90s Favre was one hell of a QB..but over a career it looks like Rodgers is going to own him. Cause Favre's career as a whole really isn't that impressive outside of the length. He had a lot of ugly years.

[NaTaS+ 958]

Meh, way to early to make this determination. Rodgers is a phenom for sure but so was Favre. You're likely too young to have seen him in his prime, he was the shit.

 

What if Rodgers --next week-- suffers a career ending injury? Would your post still be relevant? As an organization you'd rather have had Rodgers for his 3 years vs Favre for his entire career?

[Shotgun 442]

Keep in mind....the game was quite a bit different in the 90's when Brett was at his best, and had some of his best years.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Meh, way to early to make this determination. Rodgers is a phenom for sure but so was Favre. You're likely too young to have seen him in his prime, he was the shit.

 

What if Rodgers --next week-- suffers a career ending injury? Would your post still be relevant? As an organization you'd rather have had Rodgers for his 3 years vs Favre for his entire career?

 

Natas is right. Aaron has only been a starter for a few years. That can't trump the entire Brett Favre era, can it?

 

Watching Brett Favre play in the green and gold was an honor. He is one of the best QBs of all time, won a SB, three MVPs... And it was just so amazing to have the chance to watch him. I still get goosebumps thinking about some of the amazing plays / games / moments of his career.

 

Rodgers is an elite QB, but he need longevity before we start putting him in the ranks of #4.

 

:cheesehead:

[Turry 755]

C'mon sean, comparing a 20 year career to a 4 year career ? get real man way to early.

Edited September 16, 2011 by monstersofthemidway

[seanbrock 1,684]

I'm not talking comparing careers. I'm talking about Favre at his best vs. Rodgers right now. Right now I think Rodgers is better than Favre ever was.

 

Rodgers is the perfect QB, mobile even a threat as a rusher, can play in the pocket and make every throw. He's at his best on 3rd down and in the 4th quarter and most importantly in the playoffs and he can do it with shoddy protection up front.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

 

 

[RazorStar 4,025]

Congrats on playing in the league for so long that you broke all the volume records and beating a team that sucked while your team had all the momentum going into it. (Raiders).

 

The only thing good about Favre was his play in the mid 90's, his stamina, and his ability to convince coaches not to bench him on his slumps.

[Patriots2994 43]

I don't think the QB's of the past will be able to compete with the QB's of the future because of the way the game is changing. The NFL is now a passing league, so it has rules to protect the QB and his recievers to go along with it. Favre played in an era where it was still rough'n'tough football where stats didn't matter-wins did. He won't ever be called the best QB in NFL history, but he's still one hell of a QB. Favre was pretty accurate, had a great arm, was a great leader, could rally the troops from behind and win the game, and more. His biggest vices were his interceptions, which go hand in hand with his other vice-giving away the big games when they counted. Rodgers very well could surpass Favre's career, but he now plays in a league that protects QB's and has evolved to the "pass pass pass" mentality in nearly every organization. He's also smarter with the ball and doesn't make the big gunslinger throws as often as Favre. That's something Favre never gets credit for-people hate Favre for benig a gunslinger, and trash him if the pass fails, but they rejoice and love his risky throw if it succeeds. It's not a terrible thing to be a gunslinger, but the NFL is evolving now, and I think Favre will be the last true gunslinger the NFL sees. Rodgers has his ring and his Super Bowl MVP, but what he needs now is another decade if he wants to prove he's better than Favre. I don't give a damn what people say about Favre after he left Green Bay-they let him go and he kept playing because he had the desire in his heart. It shouldn't matter who he plays for now-Rodgers is your QB. I hope people don't hold that against him years down the road. So to summarize, Rodgers very well could be better than Favre, but there's no way that his 4 year career (which could be cut short with 1 more concussion) is better than Favre's long stretch.

[ride or die redskins 8]

You have to remember though that Aaron Rogers might not be where he is today without Bretty Favre. Those few years sitting on the sideline and learning from him was probably the best thing for his career.

[GA_Eagle 595]

I'm not talking comparing careers. I'm talking about Favre at his best vs. Rodgers right now. Right now I think Rodgers is better than Favre ever was.

 

Rodgers is the perfect QB, mobile even a threat as a rusher, can play in the pocket and make every throw. He's at his best on 3rd down and in the 4th quarter and most importantly in the playoffs and he can do it with shoddy protection up front.

 

Favre at his best was a 1 man show as well. He was also quite mobile, if a little less than Rodgers but no one improvised like he did. The only guy I've ever seen get wins like he did by sheer force of will was Elway. I honestly would take Favre in his prime over Rodgers right now. Rodgers can still improve on this but Favre was incredible in the mid 90's.

[BucD+ 648]

Favre at his best was a 1 man show as well. He was also quite mobile, if a little less than Rodgers but no one improvised like he did. The only guy I've ever seen get wins like he did by sheer force of will was Elway. I honestly would take Favre in his prime over Rodgers right now. Rodgers can still improve on this but Favre was incredible in the mid 90's.

 

This.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Congrats on playing in the league for so long that you broke all the volume records and beating a team that sucked while your team had all the momentum going into it. (Raiders).

 

The only thing good about Favre was his play in the mid 90's, his stamina, and his ability to convince coaches not to bench him on his slumps.

 

In 2007, Brett broke John Elway's record for wins (while Brett "played" one season longer, his first was with the Falcons where he never started, much less won a game).

 

Brett Favre broke Marino's records in the SAME NUMBER of seasons. Huge misconception that he played like 4-5 years longer to get them all.

 

Favre broke the TD record in his 17th Season, 16th as a full time starter. A record that Marino set in his 17th season, 17th as a full time starter. Same goes for completions and attempts.

 

Of all people Razor, it's disappointing that you are spreading such fallacies and misconceptions. But I guess educating the "most knowledgeable" member on these boards is what I do best.

[Maverick 791]

Your hatred blinds you, Razor.

[Packers Dynasty 2010 116]

Favre at his prime was amazing and he could have been even better if Sterling Sharpe wasn't injured. I believe Rodgers is just entering prime and could end up being better than Favre at his prime. We will have to wait and see though. Also have to take into account how talented the Packer's receiving crops is now, compared to how Favre played with mediocre WRs for the majority of his career.

 

Rodgers did not learn from Favre, he learned from McCarthy. McCarthy is the one that deserves the credit for how Rodgers is playing and how Flynn and Harrell have looked in the preseasons.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Packers Dynasty 2010

[BwareDWare94 723]

Can I get an LOLSean? This is fucking hilarious. Aaron Rodgers is definitely not on Favre level yet.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Favre played more games than Marino. Marino 242 in 17 seasons, Favre 257. Seems like you should do more in 15 extra games played, no? That is an entire season after all. He needed 7 more games to surpass Elway's winning record. Don't be a politician JDsaurus. I gave him credit for his ability to play injured, and he did have really good years in the 90's. Don't make him more than he is though.

 

Win percentage for John Elway career: 148-82-1 (64.2% win)

Win percentage for Brett Favre as of tying Elway's record 148-90 (62.2% Win)

Win percentage for Brett Favre career: 186-112 (62.4% Win)

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Can I get an LOLSean? This is fucking hilarious. Aaron Rodgers is definitely not on Favre level yet.

 

Rodgers right now is as good, if not better than Favre was at any point in his career. No, he doesn't have the longevity or the numbers of Favre, but he's already on/above the level of Favre in his prime. And he's only 27..he could end up getting better than what he has already been.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Rodgers right now is as good, if not better than Favre was at any point in his career. No, he doesn't have the longevity or the numbers of Favre, but he's already on/above the level of Favre in his prime. And he's only 27..he could end up getting better than what he has already been.

I agree, you look at all his clutch numbers. 3rd down, 4th quarter, playoff and super bowl stats. He is at his best when it matters most and does so with remarkable consistancy. He also obviously posesses and elite skill set.

[Jayrus 51]

Really? I mean... really? Aaron Rodgers wins one superbowl and you want to declare him better than the man who literally WAS the Green Bay Packers for almost two decades? Are you even old enough to have SEEN Favre play in his prime? He's one of the best to ever play the game. Now, I'm not saying Rodgers is bad. After all, he did just win the Superbowl. I just don't see how that one season lets one make the claim that he's better than the man who carried the franchise for nearly 20 years.

 

It just seems to me like people are desperate to discredit and forget Brett Favre. The man gave his heart and soul to his team and the game for two decades. He took them to the top and broke nearly every record. Then the next guy wins a Superbowl and suddenly Brett Favre was nothing? Jeez, show some respect for one of the best to ever play the game and wait for the new guy to actually HAVE a career to compare with before saying that.

 

I mean, if Chad Henne wins a Superbowl does that make him better than Dan Marino? If Kevin Kolb wins one is he better than Kurt Warner? Your rating system seems remarkable shallow. You don't take into account the legacy such players left their team. To any true Green Bay fan there should be no question who the better Qb is. Brett Favre was your franchise for nearly 20 years. He should have more than earned your respect and deserves better than to be shoved aside for the next big thing. I mean, look at us in Seattle. when Hasselbeck moved on did we attack and and call him a traitor and try to smear his legacy? No, we thanked him for everything he did for us and gave him a fond farewell. I guess you guys in Green Bay aren't capable of that ikind of respect. they way you act toward Favre is like a psychotic ex girlfriend out to ruin him because she can't have him any more. the guy has retired. Let him do so in peace.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

What the fuck does respect have to do with it when Favre was a lot of the time an average if not bad QB? The guy had 4 great years in a row, but outside of that he was so inconsistent it wasn't funny. You can't let longevity smear your image of how good he was. Again, great for four years then up and down outside of that. Just because he was there for a really long time changes none of that. If you're bad one season then you're bad. Being with that team for 14 or whatever years doesn't change that fact.

 

Favre is a HOFer, and he gets that respect. But to act like the guy was Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? Yeah, that he was not. Those guys are the staples of consistency at the QB position. Favre is so far away from that it's not funny.

Edited September 17, 2011 by .AirMcNair.

[Jayrus 51]

Are we even talking about the same player. correct me if I'm wrong, but Brett Favre only had one season under .500 with the packers. ONE. Two season were 8-8 the rest were at least 9 wins or better. The Majority were 10 or better. Yeah, REALLY inconsistant. Check the stat sheet befre you run your mouth next time.

 

Oh, and before you open your mouth and repeat that "One bad seaosn makes you bad" garbage, you do know the "Elite" Peyton Manning had two sub .500 seasons, right?

Edited September 17, 2011 by Jayrus

[WindyCitySports 407]

I think Rodgers is going to be as dominant as Favre was at the peak of his career, but I don't think he's quite there yet. He will surpass him at one point, though.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Are we even talking about the same player. correct me if I'm wrong, but Brett Favre only had one season under .500 with the packers. ONE. Two season were 8-8 the rest were at least 9 wins or better. The Majority were 10 or better. Yeah, REALLY inconsistant. Check the stat sheet befre you run your mouth next time.

 

Oh, and before you open your mouth and repeat that "One bad seaosn makes you bad" garbage, you do know the "Elite" Peyton Manning had two sub .500 seasons, right?

 

2010, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2000, 1999, and you could argue 02, 03 and 98(due to the amount of INTs) were all either average or worse seasons..I don't care what the record of his team was..he didn't play well at all in those years. That's 6 or 9, depending on if you want to use the other three years(those years certainly weren't great..a "decent" rating at best) of his years were average or worse. I won't use his first 2 years just to be fair.

 

And the worst part being, I would say, is the inconsistency he showed. Like 2008 to 2009. Or 2004 to 05 and 06. Or 99 and 00 to 01.

 

The Packers won games those years in spite of Brett Favre. Not because of him.