1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Re-match Pack vs Vikings

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by longtimefan, Oct 25, 2009.

  1. jrpack
    Offline

    jrpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    Don't worry, I had my pom-poms sent off to the dry cleaners. Most of Bretts passes are very forgetable so hard to keep them straight. Let's make a deal, Pack wins, you buy me new pom poms. You can't count bretts passing yards if Woodson catches them.
  2. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Thats called a west-coast offense and i think I have seen more top 10 plays from old no 4 hooking up with Sydney rice this year then Rodgers and Driver or Jennings for that matter. When you have a punishing back like AP what is wrong with a screen to that beast? Ask William Gay about those screens to Peterson as how effective they are, Ask Al harris if Peterson can give you a punishinhg hit. I know it sounds hard to believe but getting the ball to 28 is something the Vikings like to do.
  3. Green_Bay_Packers
    Offline

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,629
    Location:
    Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +109 / 1 / -0
    HAHAHA LOL! Hope you enjoy your new pom poms
  4. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    Rodgers yards: 1,702
    Favre yards: 1,681

    Rodgers tds: 11
    Favre tds: 12

    Rodgers ints: 2
    Favre ints: 3

    Rodgers 20+ yards:24
    Favre 20+ yards: 19

    Rodgers 40+ yards: 8
    Favre 40+ yards: 4

    Rodgers yards per game: 283.7
    Favre yards per game: 240.1

    Rodgers rating: 110.8 (Best in NFC)
    Favre rating: 102.2

    I'm sorry. Rodgers is much more explosive, and has much more big plays than Favre. And he played 1 game less than Favre. Reason why you may have seen more top 10 plays from Favre to Rice:

    1) You look for that.
    2) ESPN.
    3) All of the above.
  5. 3irty1
    Offline

    3irty1 Fear the Dreads!

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    895
    Ratings:
    +115 / 0 / -0
    Agreed.

    // And as to Adrian Peterson laying out Harris... I believe Harris didn't want to take all the credit so he just slowed him down enough for Hawk to take him out of bounds. PROVE ME WRONG!
  6. Green_Bay_Packers
    Offline

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,629
    Location:
    Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +109 / 1 / -0
    wow I didnt know Rodgers had the best rating in the NFC, Those stats say that Rodgers has had a better than Favre so far.

    Lets see what you say to that SkolGuy no doubt there is reason as to why Favre is better and no number of wins isn't the answer.
    :viksux::viksux::viksux:
  7. liljohn5115
    Offline

    liljohn5115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Stats dont lie, good find. And Im pumped that he has the highest rating in the NFC. He had the highest out of the league this past week.
  8. jrpack
    Offline

    jrpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    Also consider that Rodgers hasn't had the protection that a lot of these other QB's have had. One of the announcers made the comment that Favre had time to go out and buy a pack of cigarettes before he had to get rid of the ball. Yet all we hear is that Rodgers holds the ball too long. Don't worry Brett lovers, I am not saying that Brett is not doing well, that would not be true. And I am not saying that Rodgers doesn't sometimes hold the ball too long, they all do that on occasion. Just saying that if he had had Minnesota's o-line, he would be top in the league. Only time will tell.
  9. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Ha we are jealous he leads the league one week. Oh now:happy0005: lets so how he does this week when jared Allen is ripping his head off.:happy0005:
  10. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    ha now your compareing qb's but that is not favres job to air it out. he is 40 not 25 and his job is to manage and the Vikes are 6-1 and the packers are 4-2 so you guys can have the stats as long as we get the wins and the division!:happy0005:
  11. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    When did i say favre is better than Rodgers? god you guys are like little boys that feel inferior. I have called rodgers a stud since day one on this forum have i not? I have never said the Vikings are SB bound but now your claiming i said that and I am still waiting for you guys to show all where i said that. Aaron Rodgers has to throw as you have no running game or an offensive line. We want a 40 yr old guy to throw when he has to. Please show me these posts where i said favre is better than Rodgers? I think the Vikings team is better but as a viking fan what do you expect?:happy0005:
  12. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    You did say he had more big plays. Which is not true.
    -
    About somebody laying out somebody, do you remember who hurt Peterson in 2007????
    -
    And just so that we're clear, I've NEVER SAID FAVRE IS A BAD QB, NEVER SAID HE WAS DOING A BAD JOB, AND NEVER SAID I DIDN'T WANT HIM IN 2007!

    I've said he's not himself anymore, BECAUSE HE'S 40, BUT I'VE ALSO SAID THAT HE WOULD START IN A LOT OF TEAMS IN THIS LEAGUE, AND THAT HE WOULD INSTANTLY MAKE THE VIKINGS A MUCH IMPROVED TEAM. AND HAVE ALSO POSTED THAT FAVRE IS PLAYING VERY WELL THIS YEAR.

    But, right now, Rodgers is the better QB.
  13. Green_Bay_Packers
    Offline

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,629
    Location:
    Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +109 / 1 / -0
    Little Boys? What are you on about?
  14. Quientus
    Offline

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    509
    Location:
    Denmark, Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1993
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PackersRS [​IMG]
    You did say he had more big plays. Which is not true.


    So quarterback ratings are the "new" be all and end all when it comes to determine how "good" a quarterback is ? ... heh ...

    Those numbers don't show the amount of sacks, nor the yards lost due to sacks, nor the fumbles or the fumbles lost ...

    Another stat that is missing is the "red-zone" efficiency ...

    In terms of "big plays" ... if we take your comment then as being "true" ... - that would also mean you measure "big plays" whenever yards are gained - true ?

    So far (this season) ... Favre has indeed had more "big plays", regardless of how you measure them ... - Because in 6 out of 7 games, those have resulted in a win in the end ...

    Rodgers had a GREAT (personal, statwise) season, last season ... - but the end result was a 6-10 season ... how does that measure up to "big plays" ? Despite the Jets not making the play-offs due to severely diminshed play overall in the late season (Favre being one of the players that performed poorly in the late season), the Jets still went from a losing record (+revious season) to end up 9-7 ...

    Last, in almost every instance ... whenever there is a (close to) non-existent running game ... the quarterback will always get yards ... and with a wide-receiver corps such as Green Bay's ... most will be successfull ...

    My point being ... there is alot more to be said, than "just looking" at the "numbers" and "stats" ... - because even though those "may not lie" ... they do NOT, however, tell the "whole story" ... FAR from it ...



    Seven games into the season ... that isn't true ...

    At this point in the season ... Rodgers isn't the "better QB" of the two ... - Rodgers most likely WILL end up "being the better" quarterback once this season is over ... (pending on how both teams fare), considering Favre's performance and stats has dwindled in the later half of each season in the past few years, however ... right now ... your statement isn't true ...
  15. jrpack
    Offline

    jrpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    So you don't believe that the QB with the "stats" would be the better QB, have more "big plays" and be more "efficient in the red zone" if he had the better team behind him?
  16. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Who gives a rats *** what stats. fact is stats don't get you win. a 25 yr old Rodgers is better than a 40 yr old brett Favre. Are you happy now?
  17. Green_Bay_Packers
    Offline

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,629
    Location:
    Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +109 / 1 / -0
    Wow, For once I actually agree with you.
  18. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Your like a little fricken kid is what i am on about whatever that means. fact is if the Vikings do gel and make some noise in the post season the packer front office will look like morons to friends a foes alike. This game is your season so it is alot bigger for the pack than it is for the vikes!:happy0005: So bring it on Bitches:happy0005:
  19. jrpack
    Offline

    jrpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    I also agree. That's exactly why GB let Favre go. It wasn't that they didn't feel he was still a great QB, he is. They just had to think about the future of the franchise. Unfortunately, many don't get that. They take it as a personal slam on Favre. He would have still been with GB if that was what he wanted. It wasn't what he wanted. His choice, that simple.
  20. Quientus
    Offline

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    509
    Location:
    Denmark, Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1993

    Rodgers isn't more efficient in the RedZone compared to Favre ... - so you are wrong there ... - Look up the stats in the RedZone please ...;

    RedZone Effeciency:

    Favre: 9/14 (64,29%) 24 yards / 5 TD / 1 Sck - 15 yards lost / 1 fumble - 1 fumble lost

    Rodgers: 7/12 (58,33%) 20 yards / 3 TD / 3 Sck - 24 yards lost / 1 fumble - 1 fumble lost


    - Again those numbers don't tell the "whole story", however, they should be included when you determine "ratings" nevertheless ...



    The Packers going from 2006 into the 2007 season was close to being identical with a few minor changes ... - So for *your* statement to ring true, that would mean Rodgers should at the very least have gotten atleast a winning record (9-7) out of that team ...

    Another point is Matt Cassel in New England when Brady went down ... - New England faired pretty well with him, and everyone was starting to believe how great a quarterback Matt Cassel was ... - Then he went to Kansas City ... and the rest if history ...

    Kyle Orton was being "hammered" while with the Bears ... - Yet on the Bronco's Kyle Orton is doing pretty damn well ...

    Jay Cutler on the other hand is struggling at best in Chicago atm ... - But I still think Cutler is a way better Quarterback than Kyle Orton ...

    Everyone has been "all over" Romo for not "performing" ... however, he has had some pretty good "stats" ... but without wins ... Yet everyone is "railing" on about how Romo is a "bust" ... - Yet in the last game Romo DID come up big and had a huge part in winning the game ...

    Not to mention Drew Brees with the Saints ... - Did anyone see Drew Brees' rating in that game ? - Yet Brees did come through in the end ... regardless ..., and the Saints won against the Dolphins ...


    Fact remains ... at THIS point in the season ... Rodgers isn't the better quarterback, *when* you compare him to Favre *at this point* in the season ...



    For all intent and purposes ... that was the right decision to make ... - At that time from a business point of view ... however ... when you look at the ineptitude from the Front Office during the last season, as well as the off season going into this season, not to mention the lack of "will" to really do much about improving the o-line, it doesn't make much sense ... - 5th year into the "rebuilding" ... and the problems on the Packers team are still the same ... - From a business stand point ... - that would indicate that it isn't the players that are the problem, however, it's the management and coaching ...

    And if we are going to stay on the "business" stand point ... There isn't a board of directors out there, who would let such a thing happen to any business for that long, without taking actions ...
  21. Green_Bay_Packers
    Offline

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,629
    Location:
    Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +109 / 1 / -0
    How am I like a little kid? Just SHUT UP! :viksux:
  22. jrpack
    Offline

    jrpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    Actually, I didn't say Rodgers was more efficient in the red zone or anywhere else. I don't need to look up the stats to know that, I've watched it. Just saying that the rest of the team in general just MAY have a little something to do with the wins and losses no matter what the quarterbacks stats are.
  23. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    The Pack had to make the move, no doubt you can't leave a stud like A Rodgers on the fence like that. It just got messy is all. I don't care if it is gus ferotte or randall Cunninham leading the vikings if they are winning. Favre has been doing good so i like him but truth be told i hated him for 16 years. to me this is about two long time rivals going at it and i really don't care who is doing what as long as they win!
    I went to my first Vikings game in 1964 and it was never about one player for me. 40 for 60........... Joe Kapp 1969
  24. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    LMAO no you shut up! or I will tell my mommy. seriously what are you crying about now! Rodgers is a great QB we all agree. I have never heard anything negative about him. This is about 2 longtime NFC rivals going at it and not Brett and Aaron. Your happy with Rodgers and we are happy with Favre so line em up and see who wins the North
  25. Quientus
    Offline

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    509
    Location:
    Denmark, Scandinavia
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1993



    That's my point exactly ... - "Stats" don't tell the "whole story" ...

    "Redzone" stats isn't factored into the rating itself, but are just "apart" of the ratings ...

    If we take a look at the numbers brought up again:

    RedZone Effeciency:

    Favre: 9/14 (64,29%) 24 yards / 5 TD / 1 Sck - 15 yards lost / 1 fumble - 1 fumble lost

    Rodgers: 7/12 (58,33%) 20 yards / 3 TD / 3 Sck - 24 yards lost / 1 fumble - 1 fumble lost

    Total Stats:

    Favre: 158/229 (69,0%) / 1681 / 12 TD 3 Int / 18 Sck - 127 yards lost / 1 fumble - 1 fumble lost

    Rodgers: 121/184 (65,8%) / 1702 / 11 TD 2 Int / 25 Sck - 164 yards lost / 3 fumbles - 2 fumbles lost

    In fact the Redzone numbers will actually tell you alot though in terms of "supporting cast" ...

    5 of 12 TD's from Favre are made within the Redzone ... where as only 3 out of 11 TD's from Rodgers are made within the Redzone ...


    Most of Rodgers numbers and TD's are due to the awesome WR corps of the Packers - just as much as Rodgers is ... - However, it's not exactly the same when it comes to the Vikings ... Because if it were so ... More of Favre's TDs would be "out of the Redzone" and not while "in" the Redzone ...


    Again, my point being ... Those same stats that where used to "justify" and argue that Rodgers *is* the "better" quarterback (at the moment), can actually also be used to justify the opposite ...

Share This Page