I'm not going to talk about Herber because the game and the position were just so different in his day that it's almost impossible to compare and I'm not going to go in detail about Starr because he is the benchmark by which the others will be compared. Here's my take.
Favre was the best QB in Packer history for a period of about 4 or 5 years. If he had retired early after losing SB XXXII, he might have retained that position in my mind. But from that point on, he was a horrible playoff QB, with a 1:1 TD:INT ratio and losing several games on late INTs. He is also credited with all three Packer home playoff losses. During that 10 year span, he steadily slid back behind Starr. We did win more games solely relying on Favre's arm that we did solely relying on Starr's arm. But we also lost WAY more games due to Favre than we ever lost due to Starr. Starr also won 2 Superbowls (not that that is the best measure of a QB's greatness).
Rodgers obviously can do just about anything Favre ever could -- escapability, making big plays out of busted plays, hitting the deep throw, threading the needle, distributing the ball, anticipation, field vision. But there a few things Rodgers does much better -- picking up yards on the ground, back shoulder throws (NOBODY is better than #12 at these), accuracy and decision-making. That's not to say Favre wasn't better at some things, like shovel passes, pretending to throw after a handoff, jawing at defenders, sideline pranks, etc. But the fact that Rodgers does all these things without all the stupid mistakes Favre was prone to makes him clearly the better QB. I don't think you'd find too many in the football world who would dispute that. Well, other than Favre anyway. Rodgers clearly learned a lot by watching Favre for 3 years, including how NOT to be a great QB.
So what about Rodgers and Starr? Well, I think Rodgers combines all the best attributes of Favre with the best attributes of Starr. He has all the abilities listed in the previous paragraph, but he does it with Starr's discipline and methodical precision. He can do anything Favre and Starr ever could, but he can also do a few things those guys didn't do as well.
Now a lot depends on how Rodgers proceeds through his career, but I just don't see anything close to a repeat of Favre's last few years (in Green Bay). At this point, I see it like this:
1. Rodgers by a hair over
2. Starr by a wide margin over
3. Favre
Depending on what happens over the rest of his career, Rodgers can either widen his lead over Starr or drop back close to Favre, but if I'm betting, I would go with the former.
BTW, these aren't only the top three QBs in Packer history. They're the top three in NFC Central/North history.