Is Rodgers Better Than Favre Ever Was?

[Newz]

QBs could also be touched back then. Now if you look at them wrong a flag is thrown. A lot has changed.

I'm not saying Rodgers isn't as good or better than Favre. I'm just saying it's going to be difficult for him to ever just prove he is superior because Favre has three MVPs and a ring. Favre just threw for 4200 yards and took his team to the NFC Championship Game when he was 40... He has had a pretty impressive career.

[ReasonablySober]

Whether or not a QB can be touched doesn't make any difference in my opinion. They still get nailed today. The only difference is flags are thrown more frequently. That doesn't affect a QB's numbers IMO. Again, I think it comes down to the offenses and the ability of the players on the field.

[Newz]

Whether or not a QB can be touched doesn't make any difference in my opinion. They still get nailed today. The only difference is flags are thrown more frequently. That doesn't affect a QB's numbers IMO. Again, I think it comes down to the offenses and the ability of the players on the field.

I think it makes a difference. But we can agree to disagree on that.

I think we'll both agree Aaron Rodgers is a great player and is playing at a all-time great pace right now. I think we can agree that Favre has played at that level during his career as well, seeing as how he has won three MVPs.

Not sure if Favre ever did it quite like this in the playoffs though. I think that's the best argument people can make for Rodgers being superior.

In my opinion? I'd probably take Rodgers over Favre, just because he doesn't make nearly as many bone headed mistakes. I'd love either of them as my QB though. Green Bay was fortunate enough to have a great GM who identified Favre and then another great GM who identified Rodgers... Two good QB coaches to develop them and obviously the two QBs themselves.

I was sitting there and asking myself after the Packer win... "What can Aaron Rodgers improve on to get better?" and I really don't think he can improve on much of anything. The guy is just amazing, he really is the complete package at QB.

[DH34Phan]

We're definitely spoiled when it comes to the Quarterback position.

Having back to back Hall of Famers for 30 seasons in a row is pretty damn awesome. Yes I am assuming Rodgers will make the Hall of Fame and play another 10 seasons .

[LUKE23]

Whether or not a QB can be touched doesn't make any difference in my opinion. They still get nailed today. The only difference is flags are thrown more frequently. That doesn't affect a QB's numbers IMO. Again, I think it comes down to the offenses and the ability of the players on the field.

Agreed.

[trwi7]

Winning a Super Bowl is a team thing. Why does he have to win one? I think he will, if not this year at some point but the thing Rodgers actually can control, he's fantastic at.

Because people on here are talking about him being a HOF caliber player. Think top ten QB of all-time. Those guys win Super Bowls even with less than stellar teams.

Like Dan Marino?

[paulpressey25]

Like Dan Marino?

Marino is the one everybody goes to. Like it or not, he's got a huge asterisk that is an elephant in the room when people talk about his career.

That was the great thing for us about Favre. He got his ring monkey off his back in season five so the issue didn't come up again.

[trwi7]

Sorry pp, I'm just not buying it. Going by the Super Bowl wins logic, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are all equals as quarterbacks.

So Jim Kelly isn't a great QB but if Scott Norwood kicks a ball three feet to the left he would somehow be a much better QB?

[Newz]

Twirly, I don't think Super Bowl wins is something you can use to compare all players at the same position. However, when you are looking at the best of the best, the guys that you know are elite, I think championships should factor in.

We all know Dilfer and Johnson aren't elite players.

Manning and Favre are though. Winning a Super Bowl obviously adds to their legend and how great people view them as players. I don't think there is anything wrong with that... They both proved that they could play at a high level in the biggest game that there is.

[LUKE23]

To me, SB titles is an enhancer when it comes to GOAT discussions, but is also not required. I think performance in the postseason in general is a much bigger barometer of a QB succeeding in pressure situations. A SB can be lost by bad D, special teams, coaching, etc.

QB's should be measured by how their offenses produce in the postseason.

[Newz]

To me, SB titles is an enhancer when it comes to GOAT discussions, but is also not required. I think performance in the postseason in general is a much bigger barometer of a QB succeeding in pressure situations. A SB can be lost by bad D, special teams, coaching, etc.

QB's should be measured by how their offenses produce in the postseason.

I agree with that.

[El Duderino]

It's hard with Favre too. The NFL has changed a lot since he was in his prime, which is crazy since it wasn't even that long ago. Favre put up better statistical years later in his career than when he was in his prime, even though he wasn't as good of a player.

It's hard to look at just the stats and say who was better. Aaron Rodgers is amazing and has a chance to be the best player in franchise history and one of the best ever. But Favre has three MVPs and won us a Super Bowl. He also rarely had losing seasons and was a lot of fun to watch.

Is Rodgers right now better than Favre has ever been? Maybe. But it's hard to get much better than a guy who won three MVPs.

There are a variety of reasons for why QB's put up better stats in today's NFL, but the numbers don't lie. In the 80's and 90's, throwing for 4000 yards and having a QB rating in the 100's was very rare, not so today. Hell, many QB's from those years in the HOF finished with career passer ratings in the mid-80's. In 1996 when Favre won the MVP, only he and Young had a passer rating over 90.0, this year 14 quarterbacks had a passer rating at 90.0 or higher.

[Wilford Brimley]

It's hard with Favre too. The NFL has changed a lot since he was in his prime, which is crazy since it wasn't even that long ago. Favre put up better statistical years later in his career than when he was in his prime, even though he wasn't as good of a player.

It's hard to look at just the stats and say who was better. Aaron Rodgers is amazing and has a chance to be the best player in franchise history and one of the best ever. But Favre has three MVPs and won us a Super Bowl. He also rarely had losing seasons and was a lot of fun to watch.

Is Rodgers right now better than Favre has ever been? Maybe. But it's hard to get much better than a guy who won three MVPs.

There are a variety of reasons for why QB's put up better stats in today's NFL, but the numbers don't lie. In the 80's and 90's, throwing for 4000 yards and having a QB rating in the 100's was very rare, not so today. Hell, many QB's from those years in the HOF finished with career passer ratings in the mid-80's. In 1996 when Favre won the MVP, only he and Young had a passer rating over 90.0, this year 14 quarterbacks had a passer rating at 90.0 or higher.

This. Take a look at 1996, only 2 guys above 30 TD passes, and Marino was top 10 with 17. Also, only 2 guys with passer rating above 90, and 3 guys with more than 4k passing.

I also remember the 90s were the days when if a RB had 1k yards, it was a spectacular season.

[humanrefutation]

On a related note, Favre filed his retirement paperwork.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6030210

[PkrsBcksGphsMqt]

On a related note, Favre filed his retirement paperwork.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6030210

[Wise1]

Rodgers has made me a believer. He's better than Brett. It's only a matter of time before he wins multiple Superbowls. The turnovers make the difference.

[beyond_the_arc]

Like Dan Marino?

Marino is the one everybody goes to. Like it or not, he's got a huge asterisk that is an elephant in the room when people talk about his career.

That was the great thing for us about Favre. He got his ring monkey off his back in season five so the issue didn't come up again.

That's weak as hell, PP. Elway doesn't get rings without the most dominating back in the league in Terelle Davis and the best defense in the league at the end of his career. You'd have a 3 time SB loser and no rings, he'd still be a great QB and one of the best ever.

[emunney]

PP's right, though. By holding pretty much every passing record ever until Favre came along, Marino was only able to insert himself into the fringe of the GOAT discussion. Imagine adding one Super Bowl to his resume. Now imagine adding 5. Whether people want to admit it or not, Super Bowl wins is the most important statistic -- doesn't mean it's the be and end all, or that these other stats aren't going to be necessary to get him in the discussion. When you're talking about the best of all time, you've got to shine across the board. That includes lots of regular season wins, lots of postseason wins, big numbers and MULTIPLE Super Bowls. Even Favre suffers from only having the one.

To drive home the idea of how Super Bowl wins color our view of a guy, though, what other statistics make people look back at Dilfer's career and say, "Not a horrendous failure"?

Now, if we're looking at, "Who's playing the best in the league right now?", I don't even know if Super Bowls should be in the equation. Too many guys have played too little of their careers.