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.

    Create an Account or

    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!

So, in the end, who would you rather have?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Jess, Nov 1, 2009.

?

Who would you rather have?

  1. Rodgers for the next 10 years

    33 vote(s)
    71.7%
  2. Favre for the next 2

    13 vote(s)
    28.3%
  1. Jess
    Offline

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Location:
    Killing the buzz.
    Ratings Received:
    +471 / 1 / -0
    Rodgers for the next 10 years or Favre for 2 years?

    Big picture people, big picture. We have a top flight NFL QB for the next 10 years, you don't think a lot of teams would kill for that? I, for one, would rather take Rodgers for the next 10. QB is the most important position, and it's the hardest one to find greatness in.

    Besides, anybody with a rational mind knows that neither Favre, nor Rodgers could succeed with this current team. It's frankly not good enough to compete with the big boys. That's not the QB's fault, though. He can't fix the offensive line (though he could stop holding the damn ball), he can't make the defense any better, he can't tackle Percy Harvin on kickoff returns, he can't make Ryan Grant a competant back. Favre, Rodgers, it doesn't matter, this team isn't that good. The problem isn't the QB, we're set there, the problem is the general manager.
  2. JeffQuery
    Offline

    JeffQuery Banned Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    244
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    That's just a big, fat excuse...

    Favre could WIN with this Packer team. AROD can't...

    Case closed!
  3. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    Personally, I don't care who the QB is as long as we have a dominant offensive line, but the question is easy to answer with more info provided in the question.

    The question SHOULD have read: Based on the offensive line Green Bay has fielded since Thompson was named General Manager, and assuming the O-line stays the way it has been on average over the past 5 years, which QB would you rather have, Rodgers or Favre?
  4. Jess
    Offline

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Location:
    Killing the buzz.
    Ratings Received:
    +471 / 1 / -0
    I said a rational person. You've proven yourself as a thoroughly irrational person over and over again.

    And I like how there was no analysis or reasoning behind your claim.
  5. Quientus
    Offline

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    509
    Location:
    Denmark, Scandinavia
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1993
    Hindsight is always 20/20 ... - But case in point ... 2006/07 Season should answer your question ...

    And I don't believe that Rodgers would have gone away, had the management actually gotten an accord worked out with Favre either ...

    As I recall Rodgers was still under contract (?) ... and had they franchised him then along with adding his new contract, I have no doubt Rodgers would infact have stayed ...

    But all that is water under the bridge now ...

    However, I also believe Favre under center would have made the current offensive line somewhat better than what it appears to be currently ... As I've said earlier ... the offensive line isn't as bad as people make it out to be ...
  6. JeffQuery
    Offline

    JeffQuery Banned Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    244
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    I gave the reason.

    In '07 Favre made decisions and threw the pass usually in less than 3 seconds....based on experience, talent, and knowledge.

    Rodgers is unable to do the same.
  7. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    So, you feel it is "rational" to claim Rodgers is a better option at quarterback even though he has a losing record and cannot beat Favre? That is unreasonable and irrational logic.

    What is so wrong with admitting the truth and moving on from there???
  8. Jess
    Offline

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Location:
    Killing the buzz.
    Ratings Received:
    +471 / 1 / -0
    I'm not claiming Rodgers is better than Favre. Frankly, at this moment Favre is the better QB. It's because he's on the far superior team though. Give Rodgers the keys to the Vikings offense, and I think he plays just as well as Favre. Give Favre the keys to the Packers and I think he gets sacked 29 times and the team is 4-3. Hell, Favre might've taken more sacks, seeing as how he's less mobile than Rodgers. The question i'm asking is if you'd rather have Favre for 2 years, and then who knows who we'd have, or Rodgers for the next decade.

    Winning and losing is a team effort. Beating Favre is a team effort. Rodgers poor record is more a reflection on Ted Thompson than it is on Rodgers. Favre outplaying Rodgers is more a reflection on the Vikings supporting cast than it is Rodgers.
  9. wischeez
    Offline

    wischeez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    It's really hard to believe that a conversation about Favre over Rodgers, or Rodgers over Favre could still be going on. People, you really do need to get a grip and realize Favre is not here and will not be here. Deal with the facts as they are.
  10. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    This is where you guys lose me. Favre WAS ON THE SAME TEAM Rodgers is currently playing for. Remember when you guys crucified Brett for the NFCCG - even though the Packers managed 27 yards rushing on the day? Why was it all Favre's fault then and now suddenly the only reason Favre is better is because he has far superior talent? Are you kidding me???

    This is the danger you guys get yerselves into when you give all the credit and cast all the blame to ONE player. Well, the pigeons are all coming home to roost now and suddenly you guys wanna change the rules on how you judge QB play. What's good for da goose should be good for da gander.
  11. MplsPacker
    Offline

    MplsPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Favre's won Superbowls and MVP's. Unless Rodgers can do the same, there is no comparison.

    They rolled the dice on Rodgers, but there's no doubt, Favre is still an elite QB and will always be one of the best to ever play this game we know as professional football.
  12. Jess
    Offline

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Location:
    Killing the buzz.
    Ratings Received:
    +471 / 1 / -0
    Find me where I pinned that loss on Brett.

    Ryan Grant, Al Harris, Plaxico Burress, Eli Manning. They're the reasons we lost that game. Grant sucked, Harris couldn't cover Burress to save his life, and Eli was hitting his throws when it counted. Favre made a bad throw at the end, yes, but that happens. It's life. Had he gotten a running game, or had someone covered Plax, OT wouldn't have even been necessary in that game.

    I strongly believe that team WAY overachieved that year. I think on paper that was an 8-8 team that managed to play ridiculously over their heads. Example: Ryan Grant was nuts that year. Now he's terrible.
  13. MplsPacker
    Offline

    MplsPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The Pack needed more than Favre to beat NYG that day. They needed the whole team to step up. Yeah, Favre threw the INT in OT, but he wasn't the one who gave up the TD to Plaxico. Why blame one man for his mistake when it was obvoius the whole team made mistakes that day?
  14. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    I totally agree, and my point is basically that if people blame losses on Brett, why is not as justifiable (even if it is faulty logic) to hold Rodgers as accountable for losses he is a part of? It just smacks of such hypocrisy that my head nearly completely spins around when I read these types of comments.
  15. AzPackerfan
    Offline

    AzPackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings Received:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Yet you seem to forget that the 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 Favre flung that ball around without always making the best decision (let's see...what did Holmgren call them?? Oh yes... Rocket Balls). Experience, naturally comes with...uh....EXPERIENCE.
  16. Green_Bay_Packers
    Offline

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,629
    Location:
    Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
    Ratings Received:
    +109 / 1 / -0
    Favre doesnt have 2 years left in him, Rodgers by a mile
  17. Lone Wolf
    Offline

    Lone Wolf Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Man are the mental midgets out in force. Facts:

    Judas probably has this season in him, no others

    We have better receivers, but a horrible oline, and a merely serviceable running back. Favre would have been buried with our oline

    Vikings special teams killed us, returning the ball for a lot of yards, giving the Pack excellent field position pretty much everytime. I thhink one time they had the ball on the GB 20 yard line or so.

    There were some cheap touchdowns. One was predicated ona drive we stopped, but for a bs personal foul on Jolly. Then Peterson ran it for a TD that was not, and for some reason was not challenged.
  18. c_mac
    Offline

    c_mac Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    257
    Location:
    Iowa
    Ratings Received:
    +17 / 0 / -0
    Well, keep in mind that many of our losses over the years have come, directly, from Favre INTs just as a lot of our wins came, directly, from Favre TDs. We are not losing games due to Rodgers throwing INTs and he is throwing multiple TDs in every game. So it isn't really hypocracy to suggest that Favre played a bigger role in some of our losses than Rodgers.

    Rodgers is not throwing games away by throwing multiple picks a game. That is what chaps my *** the most this year about Favre - where are the INTs? If we would have gotten INT-free Brett we would have won multiple Super Bowls.

    I also don't remember Favre winning a lot of games where the defense gave up 38 points.
  19. angryguy77
    Offline

    angryguy77 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    oshkosh
    Ratings Received:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Well I think us "mental midgets" like to think that the Jolly PF made up for the bad non-fumble call on grant.

    Here is a fact: GB under TT sucks bad and the real mental midgets are people that have fallen for this goon and thouht this team was good.

    Fact: Only mental midgets would get hyped up about preseason and think its an indication on how good the team is.


    When you are done with the "corky" insults and disresepect for other people, maybe you should step back and look at this team. TT is an epic failure and people need to start questioning his tactics.
  20. Quientus
    Offline

    Quientus Oenophile

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

    The huge difference between those two right now is:

    Rodgers plays *NOT* to lose ... and *NOT* to make mistakes ... (which is why he is getting sacked so much actually)

    Favre plays to (TRY) to win ... - Also meaning that old Greybeards isn't intimidated by the possibility of throwing a pick ...


    While Rodgers probably won't lose any games for the Packers, like Favre has in some games in the past (by throwing the INT), Rodgers at the same time - AT *This* point in his career, will NOT win any games either ... Because that would require him to risk a little more when it is needed ("Clutch plays") ...



    Then again ... the win vs loss ratio Favre has pretty much speaks for itself don't you think ? ...

    Traded to NY Jets ... had to learn a whole DIFFERENT offensive system ..., yet Favre was a huge factor (not the only factor, but a huge factor) that the NY Jets was as succesfull as they were - untill his arm gave out ...



    No matter how much anyone dislikes Favre, not being able to understand and acknowledge what he brings to any team he is on, is ludicrous ... and either goes to show that people know very little about football, or just don't get it ...


    There were several times in yesterdays game where Rodgers had AMPLE time (at one point as much as 6,5+ seconds) - Yet Rodgers was still sacked ... - I'm sorry, but no matter how much anyone may dislike Favre ... - that isn't the offensive lines fault ... but the quarterback ... anymore than 3-4 seconds is practically and "eternity" in the pocket ...
  21. Streetpack
    Offline

    Streetpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    its really no question that Favre is better than Rodgers RIGHT NOW. However, history has proven (in the last few years) that While Favre still PLAYS, his body breaks down and he is not as effective down the stretch run...

    I would love to see him in the playoffs with Minny and watch the Packers run wild on him. I'm new to the forum and from what I've been reading a lot of guys here are very critical of Rodgers. Granted he played awful in the first half but he was lights out in the 4th Quarter. If Mason Crosby can kick a long range field goal, minny doesn't get that field position, that big screen and that Touchdown.

    It was 3rd and 3...nobody decided to block Jared Allen...we get a body on him on that one play, I am 100% positive we win yesterday

    Generally...when you give up 38 points and you get to start every drive at the 40...you aren't the team that loses the game.
  22. JeffQuery
    Offline

    JeffQuery Banned Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    244
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    We've been hearing this kind of crap since when...'04..'05...Favre is washed up...he's not the future...He only has another year or two in him...blah..blah..blah..bull****.

    If Ted Thompson would have addressed these issues, we could have won two SB's by now.

    But no...the plan is to be cheap and "build through the draft"....Well, you've seen how good that has been working out having the youngest team in the NFL.
  23. Quientus
    Offline

    Quientus Oenophile

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

    For all of those who keep insisting on that Favre will (eventually) "break down" later in the season, and whom are also very happy about (Rodgers') statistics ... - You should probably be aware that "statistically" speaking, the likelyhood of that happening this season is less than it has been before ...

    Barring the mid 90's ... it's hard to find another Packers team which as much talent on all 3 phases, than what Minnesota currently has ...

    The "excuses" are getting harder and more difficult for those who dislike Favre, to "conjure" up ... - Pretty much the only one left is the one people are using now: That he (Favre) *will* break down later in the season and lose a possible play off game (all on his own), which is kinda hilarous ...

    "Individual players can get a team to the play-offs ..., however it takes a (whole) team to win the Super Bowl."


    - I don't remember who said that, but it's true ...


    8 games played into the season ... the Vikings are 7-1, they have sweeped the Packers, and most likely will do the same to the Bears ...

    How all the experts managed to pick the Packers before the game, to win surprises me ... - Yet in the same breath, most of the same experts are predicting Saints as the "Super Team", totally disregarding the fact that the Dolphins pretty much dominated them for 3 quarters. Not to mention the "Fall from Grace" that the Giants are currently experiencing ...

    The Ravens dominated and shut down the Broncos, - who so far has been this seasons great surprise ...
  24. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    Nice - plus the Aints just lost Sedrick Ellis for a month - ouch!
  25. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    Well, at some point this back and forth loses its effect because Favre is proving to win no matter where he goes. I think at the end of the day, this is why most experts use "wins" as the ultimate judge. It ain't the best method because a QB is one of 53, but it sure beats the "what if's" or the claims that Favre lost games because of picks or won games because of quick decision-making. When a guy plays for 20 years, and he plays basically the same way with the same results, one needs to realize a pattern that has developed.

Share This Page