Green Bay Packers 20 yrs now of elite QB play

[A Diddy2231]

So we had Brint for 17yrs and now Rodgers for 3yrs. I was thinking back to all the teams in the league over the past twenty years, and I'm wondering, what team would be the next in line, with the least amount of different QB's starting for them in the past 20yrs. Anyone bored at work, and care to dig this up? lol

[Newz]

I'm guessing Indy would be next up with Manning.

[ReasonablySober]

The 49ers.

[Newz]

The 49ers.

I think he's talking about just the last 20 years.

[MickeyDavis]

Most of you weren't around the previous 20 years but it was brutal. Guys like Hunter, Del Gaizo, Hadl (way past his prime). Dickey had some decent years, Majik had a good year but otherwise it was brutal.

Here's the list of who started between Starr and Favre:

Hunter
Tagge
Del Gaizo
Concannon
Hadl
Milan
Dickey
Brown
Johnson
Whitehurst
Wright
Majkowski
Risher
Dilweg
Kiel
Tomczak

[Newz]

Most of you weren't around the previous 20 years but it was brutal. Guys like Hunter, Del Gaizo, Hadl (way past his prime). Dickey had some decent years, Majik had a good year but otherwise it was brutal.

Here's the list of who started between Starr and Favre:

Hunter
Tagge
Del Gaizo
Concannon
Hadl
Milan
Dickey
Brown
Johnson
Whitehurst
Wright
Majkowski
Risher
Dilweg
Kiel
Tomczak

My father tells me about this all of the time when the Favre debate comes up. He's still really upset with Thompson for getting rid of Favre.

Why? He tells me it's because I wasn't around for the years before Favre. He said that it was absolutely brutal and that watching a Packer game most of the time was painful because of how terrible our QB play was.

He thinks Rodgers is a really good player, but he's mad that Thompson took the chance rather than just going with the guy we already knew was good until he completely ran out of gas.

I guess I can see that, considering I'm only 25 and I've had good/great QB play pretty much every year since I've started watching the NFL.

[LarryHarris]

Makes it really hard to have perspective on other team's quarterback issues...

[A Diddy2231]

I did a quick look at the Patriots and Colts come the closest...

[rilamann]

Another crazy thing when you stop and think about it is that after the 1988 season the Packers have only had 4 losing seasons.'90,'91,'05 & '08.

Impressive but it does kinda suck that with only 4 losing seasons since 1988 and 20 years of great QB play we only have 1 Super Bowl in that span to show for it.

[Thunder Muscle]

If Majkowski doesn't get his rotator cuff f'd up on a personal foul, he was actually showing potential to be a pretty solid QB too before Favre/Rodgers. He was an elite passer in 1989 and pretty mobile, unfortunately one will never know his potential. He kind of revived the organization in the late 80's with the "Cardiac Pack" - well for a year or so. He was never really the same after the injury.

[Wilford Brimley]

We could go all day speculating and we wouldn't reach a conclusion, but I still can't help but wonder what it would have been like if Majik had never gotten hurt. And not to sleight Majik, but with as good as good as Favre was, I doubt we could have had it better.

[A Diddy2231]

The Colts and Patriots each technically had 4 starting QB over this span, but that was because of injury

[Kerb Hohl]

Most of you weren't around the previous 20 years but it was brutal. Guys like Hunter, Del Gaizo, Hadl (way past his prime). Dickey had some decent years, Majik had a good year but otherwise it was brutal.

Here's the list of who started between Starr and Favre:

Hunter
Tagge
Del Gaizo
Concannon
Hadl
Milan
Dickey
Brown
Johnson
Whitehurst
Wright
Majkowski
Risher
Dilweg
Kiel
Tomczak

My father tells me about this all of the time when the Favre debate comes up. He's still really upset with Thompson for getting rid of Favre.

Why? He tells me it's because I wasn't around for the years before Favre. He said that it was absolutely brutal and that watching a Packer game most of the time was painful because of how terrible our QB play was.

He thinks Rodgers is a really good player, but he's mad that Thompson took the chance rather than just going with the guy we already knew was good until he completely ran out of gas.

I guess I can see that, considering I'm only 25 and I've had good/great QB play pretty much every year since I've started watching the NFL.

I know plenty of people with that same view. I'm 24 and vaguely remember bits and pieces of Majik Man. I got a Hutch jersey or mock uniform for Christmas and it was still when they were making #7 ones and he was QB.

Anyways, shouldn't your dad and all these other people be thankful for TT now? Especially after the fact? He saved us from the possibility of 20 more years of brutal QB play and got us 10-15 more great ones.

[MickeyDavis]

Majik was a cool guy. When the Pack played in Milwaukee several players would hang out after the game at the old Lukes Sports Spectacular on Water St (back then Lukes was the ONLY bar on Water St). He was always very approachable, loved talking football with the fans.

[Wilford Brimley]

Yeah, I met Majik once at a golf tourney back in 2004. Longwell, Tauscher and Favre were there too. Favre was chill, and Tauscher was very nice but a bit quieter. Longwell was a bit aloof, but spoke to fans nonetheless. The most outgoing was Majik, he signed autographs for a lot of fans and just shot the breeze with people. Hot wife, too.

[Bernman]

The older guys on this board (PP, VV), Pliska's dad, etc.; have worse perspective than the younger guys. Literally half the starting QB's in the league right now or more have a QB rating that equals or surpasses Favre's career number. When the Packers struggled filling the position in the past it was due to bad decision making and different circumstances with no salary cap, etc. The appreciation for Favre is too great by some here and Pliska's dad is being foolish, especially considering what Aaron Rodgers is doing. Even if he had sucked it was a good gamble given what he showed prior to being handed the position, the # of quality QB's in the league these days, the fact that Favre was 38-39, and we would have risked alienating Rodgers and a number of other players on the team by placating the Dongslinger. Favre has been sub par two of his last three seasons, and would he have even played beyond 2008 without the impetus to stick it to his former team who he was supposedly the "savior" of and "wronged" him as a result?

[MickeyDavis]

I'll gladly admit I was one that wasn't happy at the time about Favre being traded. It wasn't so much that I thought he was still a great QB, he wasn't. But we had a lot of talent on that team and I was very very leery about Rodgers because of the list of Tedford coached quarterbacks who were busts.

David Carr
Akili Smith
Joey Harringon
Kyle Boller

The only one who was wasn't a complete bust was Dilfer and he wasn't very good.

So yes, I wanted to keep a declining Favre over who I thought was going to be a bust.

Obviously I was wrong, as were a whole bunch of GM's who passed over Rodgers (think the Vikings wish they had taken him at #18 instead of Erasmus James?).

It's easy to look back with hindsight and say it was an obvious, easy move. It wasn't.

[MrLynch07]

Would have to be the Patriots. Bledsoe to Brady.

[Bernman]

It's hardly hindsight. Of course I and many other people with better perspectives than the old guys wanted it to occur at the time.

When I talked with people about the transition I said my only concern about Rodgers was durability. Ability wise, in the '07 preseason he showed at least as well as Hasselbeck did for us years earlier, and then he impressed against a tough opponent on the road during the regular season. I didn't need much convincing though because I was a big fan before the draft. Tedford schmedford. Rodgers had a big arm, smarts, accuracy, and was mobile. Those attributes do not a QB friendly system solely make.

And Favre was no sure thing himself. Actually he was far from it. His trend was playing poorly 2 out of his last 3 years here. A trend which continued after he left. Let's see: 1-2 years probably out of a QB with 33% chance to be an asset, or 10-15 out of a promising QB prospect who even pessimistically had better than a 33% of panning out when like 20-30 teams have a capable player at the position? That's a real tough choice.

It was an EASY decision to people without an emotional attachment to Favre and a distortion about the relevance of the Packers' archaic past regarding the QB position.

[RiotPunch]

people with better perspectives