Comments on: Brett Favre vs Aaron Rodgers thru 20 Career Starts

By: Favre vs. Rodgers

Favre vs. Rodgers — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:04:10 +0000

Comparisons like this are ridiculous.
Didn’t Rodgers have the benefit from:
1) learning the offense over years w/o pressure
2) observe Favre in action and learn (+/-)
3) playing for better overall team to with far better receivers
4) playing in a league much more “passing oriented” than Favre’s
first 2 yrs
Don’t get me wrong, I like Rodgers but a comparison is foolish..

By: Kingfisher

Kingfisher — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:28:54 +0000

I just want to see the Packers get past the Cardinals today (Jan. 10) and eventually face the Vikings for a Rodgers-Favre post-season matchup. Two good teams, two undeniably great quarterbacks. Should be an awesome game.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:09:58 +0000

Amazing to me that Packer fans still try to compare these two guys! The Packers are incredibly lucky to have Rodgers and when you look back at the history of the NFL only once has a legend at QB been followed by someone like Rodgers and that was Steve Young following Montana. Does anyone really think Favre would have played well on the Packers at the beginning of the year! He always crumbles under pressure and has shown that at the end of this year when teams got pressure on him after shutting down the run. Favre did get rid of the ball faster but with the way our line was playing he would have had a ton of interceptions at the beginning of this year and we would have been lucky to be 4-4. Favre was a great QB and no one can deny that, but he wasn’t going to last forever and we appear to have another decade hopefully with a first rate QB! Not a huge Nugget head Ted fan myself but gets sickening listening to Packer fans bicker over something stupid all the time. Rodgers has been amazing for being so young and will only get better.

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:07:48 +0000

Rodgers is already one of the most exciting QBs in the league. A 2nd year starter that has over 8000 yards passing, nearly 60 tds, 64 percent completions and less than 25 picks. Sounds pretty damn good to me.
For 16 years Favre was all ours and we couldn’t imagine him ever playing anywhere else. But let’s get real, franchise superstars move on. I will always cherish the memories of Favre as I will Rodgers.

By: Shaney

Shaney — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:47:54 +0000

I think Leroy Butler has a point. Farve is a diva! He has When the TEAM wins he takes the credit, when they lose WE have alot of work to do. Im so glad the Drama is over. I think when the dust settles Ted Thompson will look like a genious!

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:46:11 +0000

So – Yes , stats are EVERYTHING in football ! Rodgers is by far better than Brett Faker was
The Packers Have their problems – but Rodgers is not one at all. A few years ago the Viqueens made it into the playoffs with a wildcard and beat the Packers (w/Faker) out. That is exactly what is going to happen this year – the Packers have really gotten their crap 2gether and are playing better Football than the Viqueens. Arizona just walked all over Minn. Mark my words – “those purple wussies are bound for doom – it’s their fate “…

By: degrizzle

degrizzle — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:37:46 +0000

You cannot put it in terms of ‘wins’ and ‘losses’…there are plenty of other people on the team responsible for performing. Even the greatest general cannot win without good recruits. Thanks brandon.

By: brandon

brandon — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:29:16 +0000

If favre was behind the o-lin rodgers has to deal with, he would be in two pieces.

You cannot judge a quarterback on just wins. If the defense allows a game winning drive to make it 49-53, is the qb a bad quarterback because he lost even though he had 6 td’s, 400yds, and 0 int? If the game is won 7-0 and the only score is a punt return for td, is the quarterback great because he gets the win even with 0 td, 100 yds, and 5 ints? That doesnt make sense…

For wins and losses, there are a lot of other factors involved outside the qb’s skill level. quality of running game, quality of recievers and tight ends, quality of o-line blocking pass rushers… etc. If a qb was quarterbacking 5 year olds against an nfl team, he wouldnt win. and that doesnt mean they are not good.

By: rmlumley

rmlumley — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:46:48 +0000

I don’t know if the 2003 defense was “Shitty”. It was ranked 11th in the league in Yards Allowed. For a comparison, last year’s defense was ranked 20th in the league in Yards Allowed.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:41:38 +0000

Tim Clark:
“Remember that in 2006 the team was 4-12 as well meaning that 2007 team was a partially the beneficiary of an easier schedule. The NFL adjusts the strenght of schedule based upon prior year results.”

No, the 4-12 team was in 2005, the one with all the injuries. The 2006 team was 8-8.

Anyway, I don’t buy into this ‘comparing stats’ argument. You sort of defeated your own argument when you answered the first poster with the records of Orton and Grossman in their first two years. By doing that, it basically proves that the first two years of a career don’t mean a damn thing. Bottom line, Favre makes an average team look great and Rodgers can’t. At least not yet. Rodgers will be a good QB given time, but he will never be in any “greatest ever” talk with the likes of Unitas, Montana, Favre, Young, Elway, Marino, Starr, P. Manning, etc.

And to Aaron…Favre only had a great defense for a couple years in the mid-1990s. I remember him having shitty defenses most of his career (like back in 2003 when they gave up the 4th and 26 to the Eagles in the playoffs). The Vikings defense this year is nearly as good as the Packer defense in 1996, if the secondary can get healthy and play a bit better.