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. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    Rodgers wouldn't have had much of a choice. After all, try to think back to the times Rodgers was inserted into the role as spot starter: It wasn't pretty. He fumbled like crazy and broke his leg in one instance. So, his services wouldn't have been in such high demand as they would be now, so he would get less money than what the Gray Goose would have given him to ride the pines. Teddy seemed to really fancy Rodgers early on.

    Doesn't really matter now because Favre was finished with Green Bay and their nickel-dime approach to running a bidness, so he wouldn't have stayed even if Teddy had apologized for acting like such a buffoon.
  2. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    The fans don't have a choice. Are they gonna "boo" Rodgers? No.

    People accept Rodgers, but nobody that is being honest with themselves loves him like they did Favre. With Rogers, you basically get another NFL player with little personality. It's gonna take Rodgers loosening-up and proving he really ENJOYS playing the game - not all bunged-up appearing like he's got the weight of the world on his shoulders.
  3. Lone Wolf
    Offline

    Lone Wolf Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The only thing more comical and yet still offensive than Pom Pom calling himself a Packers fan is that he actually thinks I care what he has to say.
  4. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings Received:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    What? So all fans aren't being honest? They love Favre more? C'mon man, don't let your distorted view of what happened interfere with your judgement. You can't possibly believe that, that even though they booed their hearth out Favre and applauded vibrantly Rodgers they didn't actually mean? It's sad if you think that way...

    You may have that oppinion, but it became pretty clear most do not.
  5. SpartaChris
    Online

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,036
    Ratings Received:
    +944 / 25 / -9
    In the end I would rather have Rodgers. I don't think Brett will be back next season, which puts the Vikes back to square one, and possibly (Hopefully) even sets them back for a few years. Plus, I imagine next season Rodgers will be much improved. He's good already, but as he gets more experience under his belt, he'll only be able to improve.

    We're still competitive now and I feel we've made the transition from one HOF QB to a future pro-bowl caliber QB. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was Brett Favre. Rodgers will get better and the team will get better.
  6. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    I don't know. Area Green Bay businesses reported a 15% drop in revenue after Favre left, which continues to this day. So, I'm not saying people don't "like" Rodgers, but it's fairly clear they don't "love" him - YET.

    If you don't care to realize Favre's departure had a negative effect on the fan base, you're not thinking rationally.
  7. OHIOFAN
    Offline

    OHIOFAN Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    80
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I would rather have Rodgers than Favre period. Put Favre on this team where he has to deal with being sacked and knocked around and he would be leading the league in pics and look plain old. Favre is shining with the Vikes b/c he has a great O-line, the best running back in the league and a good defense. It does not hurt either that the Vikings special teams often puts Favre around mid field to start his drives. Look at where the Pack often begins drives, even before the injuries to Blackmon and Nelson, the team needed a playmaker on Special teams. The Packers have a BAD O-LINE, no threat at running back and have faced a Vikings team twice so far who is a complete team. Favre is not what makes the Vikings great, he helps them, but last year the Pack and Vikings were pretty much even, now the Vikings have added a leader in Favre and the Packers O-line have taken a major step back, and Grant STILL is trying to get it together.
  8. Quientus
    Offline

    Quientus Oenophile

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

    To say that Favre is *only* shining because he is playing with the Vikings this season is terrribly flawed at best ...

    Yes Favre is playing on a very gifted Vikings team, however the Vikings had a far better team than the Packers last season as well, but the Vikings were not as dominant last season as they are in this season ... In fact the Vikings defense had way better stats last season than this one ...

    Favre didn't play on a team with as much talent as he does now in the 2007 season, yet the Packers went 13-3 that season ... - How do you explain that ?

    Or at the Jets last season ? ... The Jets again, were not as talented as this seasons Vikings, yet Favre played pretty well untill his arm gave out, not to mention while at the Jets, Favre had to learn an entirely new and different offensive system than he had been used to for the past 16 seasons with the Packers ...


    The only common denominator for all of the above mentioned team is one player ... - People tend to severely underestimate what a great leader can do for any team ... And barring one single season in 2005 (where the Packers actually *began* to rebuild) Favre had only had one single losing season while playing ... - One single losing season out of (now) 18 seasons isn't a "fluke" ... However when ever most fans has to reciprocate to that ... the old "but he only won one single Super Bowl" arguement comes up ...

    Regular season playing versus Play Off playing are actually different ... Every coach in the NFL knows this ... - Just ask Belichick about that during the 2007 season where New England went 16-0 to 18-0 during the Play Offs, only to lose in the Super Bowl ...
  9. angryguy77
    Offline

    angryguy77 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    oshkosh
    Ratings Received:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Very well put. There is always a back up excuse as to why when things are going good for him. His arrival in NY had people talking about the jets in the sb. When was the last time that happend to the Jets?
  10. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,605
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings Received:
    +2,517 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    LOL at fans loving Rodgers like they did Brett...Yeah that makes sense...16 year player to a 2nd year player
  11. Lone Wolf
    Offline

    Lone Wolf Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Thank you for stating the obvious.
  12. angryguy77
    Offline

    angryguy77 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    oshkosh
    Ratings Received:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Seriously, are you on a mission to every single poster hate you. Why does there have to be a wise crack in every response?
  13. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    The problem is that Wolf's pro-establishment, so he basically gets free reign to insult anybody he cares to. However, bash Packers' brass and prepare to have your posting style gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

    Pretty disappointing when we're amongst grown men that are supposedly fully mentally developed:).
  14. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings Received:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    Again, if you feel you haven't been treated equally, go complain to the mods or to the owner. PM me or them. Better approach than to use sarcasm...
  15. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings Received:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    LOL That is too funny! They only ban you if your a badboy
  16. Hauschild
    Offline

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    It IS funny and the facts exist and are well-documented for all to see.

    SKOL, you're kinda in a different boat than I am. You're a Packers hater, which is bad but not as bad as a Packers fan who currently chooses to follow the Vikings - that's a no-no. :)
  17. realoatesman
    Offline

    realoatesman Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Currently going to college in Minnesota, but origi
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Yeah watch out people! U dis Thompson or McCarthy one mo' time again and u be outta here!
  18. Skol guy
    Offline

    Skol guy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    766
    Ratings Received:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    I reck'in, far be it from me to stir the kettle in the land of Green and gold. As I am on a probation period with a short leash from my friends at the head of the forum. So I am here to play nice. I know very little of all three of them so I can't give a fair judgement either way.
  19. RobsPics
    Offline

    RobsPics Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    17
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Any rational person, w/o sour grapes, would pick Favre.

    There's no hard proof that Rodgers can be a star QB. As of this moment, he is a serviceable starting QB. You don't get rid of a STAR QB, coming off a 13-3 season, with a serviceable QB.

    Now Rodgers MIGHT blossom into a STAR/Franchise type QB. That has yet to be seen. And it's not like there is never going to be other franchise caliber QB's coming out of college in the next half decade either.
  20. FanOfTheGame
    Offline

    FanOfTheGame Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    51
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    But the question is whether you would want Favre for the next two years or Rodgers for the next ten. Stating that any rational person would pick Favre seems to just be answering who you would rather have as your qb now, without consideration to the future which is what the question is getting at.

    Sure there might be other franchise caliber QBs coming out of college in the next half decade, but what are the chances that GB would get them? Especially if Favre is the QB and the Packers had two good or great seasons. And if GB did get one of those quarterbacks out of college that quarterback wouldn't likely be ready to start immediately.

    I agree that you don't get rid of a star QB coming off of a 13-3 season if you think you have a valid shot at the SB. But I'm thinking that with Favre, although the Packers could make the playoffs, with this team I don't see them getting to the SB.

    I disagree with the other posters who think it would have been impossible to have Favre and retain Rodgers. I guess it doesn't really matter though because the question makes it an either/or and implies that having both was not possible. Under those circumstances I would prefer to have Rodgers for the next 10 years.
  21. SpartaChris
    Online

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,036
    Ratings Received:
    +944 / 25 / -9
    Well yeah.. I'll take someone with no illusions about who they are over a traitor any day.
  22. SpartaChris
    Online

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,036
    Ratings Received:
    +944 / 25 / -9
    @FanOfTheGame-

    Here's the thing- By all accounts, Favre didn't want to be a Packer going in to 2008. You'd think it would be a no brainer- being 5 minutes from the Super Bowl and all. But he decided he wanted out, and my gut feeling is he wanted out of Green Bay long before the 2007 season, as evidenced by remarks Troy Aikmen made during Sunday's game.

    Then you consider the fact that he waited until the last possible minute to decide he wanted to play again. At any time before or even after his retirement he could have stood up and said, "I want to play for the Packers." But he didn't. He waited until Green Bay was in an impossible situation before he finally committed himself to playing in 2008. I'm sorry, but **** him for doing that.

    I'm convinced the reason he's playing so well right now isn't solely because he's on a good team. It's because he's where he's wanted to be for several years now.
  23. ColtsSeahawks
    Offline

    ColtsSeahawks Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I would still take Rodgers for the next 10 years... Favre played as good as he ever will with Greenbay in 07 and they lost in the playoffs... Rodgers is fully capable of taking this team to the playoffs and I think he will. We still dont know how Favre will do down the stretch.... Minnesota has a tough schedule ahead.... They have to play Chicago twice, Carolina, Arizona, Cinncinanti, and end with the Giants. Brett Favre looked awesome with the Jets half way through the season as well.

    Although the Pack finished with a losing record last year Rodgers still had a solid season and didnt fold down the stretch. He played consistent all year. And he is doing the same this year. I think the Pack will go 10-6 this year. Minnesota will probably go 12-4.
  24. FanOfTheGame
    Offline

    FanOfTheGame Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    51
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I'm not sure what your point is, but I think you are saying that you would rather have Rodgers because you don't think Favre even wanted to play for the Packers. And if he didn't want to play for the Packers he would not have been the better quarterback. There would be nothing wrong with that logic except that you also think he didn't want to play for the Packers in 2007 and he had one of his best seasons. So I'm not sure his desire (or lack thereof) to be on a specific team affects his performance.

    The fact remains that Favre is playing well right now with the Vikings. It doesn't matter why he is playing well. The reason I think the Packers would have been better off keeping Favre and Rodgers is because it would have kept him from playing for the Vikings and the Packers would likely be leading the division.
  25. OHIOFAN
    Offline

    OHIOFAN Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    80
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    My point about the fans needing to support Rodgers like they did Favre is b/c he is your starting QB and a damn good one at that. Rodgers is not the reason why this team has lost to the Vikings twice so far. Super Man Favre himself could not have avoided the hits Rodgers has been taking. He no doubt would be avoided most of the sacks, b/c he would have thrown the ball up for grabs like a 3rd grader on recess when the pressure came. I just don't understand why anyone thinks that this team would be any better off with Favre as QB, other than the fact that he would not be playing for the Vikings right now. Last year the Packers and Vikings were pretty close (talent wise). The Packers O-line took a major step back and Grant has never regained form. What people fail to look at is the average starting field position for the Vikings, Favre constantly has a short field to work with. When Green Bay starts a drive off on their 35-40 yard line it is a big deal, but the Vikings get to do it time and time again. This team needs to improve on O-line, special teams and running back. The only thing it seem that they fixed from last year is the D-line, they need a lot of help in the draft. Favre is having a great year, but a great O-line has made it easier for him. I do think that he is playing at a very high level (one of this better years), still think that TT made the right choice. Rodgers will be the leader of the team for many years, look at some of the teams around the league and not many have a QB they can build around. Cleveland has been looking for that since Kozar, it is not easy to find. The Pack has a young future star who is taking a A-- wooping every week and people keep whining about Favre, lets fix what is broken on the team and move on. How about making as much stink about the TERRIBLE O-LINE, and piss pore running game, if you do that might get fixed.

Share This Page