ESPN's Take: Rodgers or Favre? + McCarthy Camp

[Bensalama21]

Here is a video of McCarthy's QB Camp and a short segment on whether Rodgers or Favre was better at certain things (Throw accuracy, etc). Jerry Rice seems to show Aaron the love here!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[FrankRizzo]

 

[ivo610]

"hell have to play 12 more years to stop the comparisons to Brett Favre."

Umm no... it would just get worse as he gets closer to the volume records.

What did Favre do to Jerry Rice? Maybe I actually dont want to know.

Great find.

 

[LAG]

I watched that segment last weekend on NFL Live. Jerry Rice said he likes Rodgers better for a number of reasons one being his accuracy and his low interception total. Same reasons most everyone else feels the same way.

 

[Rocky11]

I think it is sort of an unfair comparison really. Farve was in the league a lot longer than Rodgers. Not quite apples to apples yet but it will be in time. But I do agree with Jerry that Rodgers is the more accurate passer.

 

[burt packerack]

mark brunell all the way

 

[Shawnsta3]

mark brunell all the way

Its all about Ty Detmer.

 

[DevilDon]

They are all system QBs. You could plug in T.J. Rubley and win the SB.

 

[El Guapo]

You can compare players at the prime/peak, so it's fair to compare 1996/97 Favre to 2010/11 Rodgers. As much as I'm still a big Favre fan, I think that Rodgers gets the edge. He's a more complete player, an equal athlete, but most importantly a better decision maker. Favre always compensated for his lack of saavy with a flair for the dramatic, making the impossible pass when all else failed. We all loved and hated that aspect of Favre. There isn't much to hate about Rodgers except that maybe he doesn't wow you in the way that Favre did....but I'll take Rodgers' consistency and accuracy any day.

 

[GreenBlood]

He's a more complete player, an equal athlete, but most importantly a better decision maker.

^^^^^^^^

There isn't much to hate about Rodgers except that maybe he doesn't wow you in the way that Favre did....

I would disagree with that one. A lot of Favre's "wow factor" came from doing something incredibly stupid and somehow getting away with it and turning it into a big play. The problem was that he would also do the same incredibly stupid thing the next week and turn it into a big play for the OTHER team. (That's why we all knew what was about to happen when Favre pissed away the 2009-10 NFCC game with that INT.) In four seasons, I have yet to see Rodgers do a single incredibly stupid thing on the field.

 

[Bensalama21]

A lot of Favre's "wow factor" came from doing something incredibly stupid and somehow getting away with it and turning it into a big play.

That sums it up right there. You would expect a complete disaster and somehow he would pull another trick out of his sleeve. Rodgers is so calm and has such a pocket presence so that everyone expects him to complete the pass or get another big play.

 

[Cyclonextreme]

I agree 100% with Jerry on this one. Once Rodgers number is retired in Green Bay, he will be looked as a better player than Favre was. And that is saying something.

 

[toolkien]

You can compare players at the prime/peak, so it's fair to compare 1996/97 Favre to 2010/11 Rodgers. As much as I'm still a big Favre fan, I think that Rodgers gets the edge. He's a more complete player, an equal athlete, but most importantly a better decision maker. Favre always compensated for his lack of saavy with a flair for the dramatic, making the impossible pass when all else failed. We all loved and hated that aspect of Favre. There isn't much to hate about Rodgers except that maybe he doesn't wow you in the way that Favre did....but I'll take Rodgers' consistency and accuracy any day.

All QB's from the age of 27-28 (so encompasses Favre's '96-'97 and Rodgers' '10-'11) sorted by ANY/A+.

http://pfref.com/tiny/7ah85

Interesting side note. Click on the AV (far right column). This is their Additional Value calculation. Note that Rodgers is 2, Favre is 6, Brunell is 16, Hasselbeck is 20, and Aaron Brooks is 23. FIVE 27-28 year old performances that are in the top 25, all time, were QB's who came through the Packers between '92-'11. If one adds their 25 and 26 aged years Rodgers is 1, Favre is 3, Brooks is 9, Brunell is 18, and Hasselbeck is 52 (because only has three years as a starter over the age frame 25-28, if one were to take Hasselbeck's 29 year old AV for his missing 25 year old AV, he'd rank out at 31). It's amazing what the Packers have generated as far as QB'ing the last 20 years and Flynn is yet to be seen. But then again, considering ****ey and Majkowski, QB'ing wasn't the worst of the Packers' problems, at least for most of The Dark Years. Once the Packers figured out how to get quality players, offensive lines that could keep a QB vertical, backs who could rush/catch/block, defenses that were at least top third in the league, and had coaches and/or quality schemes the Packers were at the top of the charts. And they had extra QB's to spare (and assistant coaches to be HC elsewhere too). So much talent at every level.

 

[Cyclonextreme]

All QB's from the age of 27-28 (so encompasses Favre's '96-'97 and Rodgers' '10-'11) sorted by ANY/A+.

http://pfref.com/tiny/7ah85

Interesting side note. Click on the AV (far right column). This is their Additional Value calculation. Note that Rodgers is 2, Favre is 6, Brunell is 16, Hasselbeck is 20, and Aaron Brooks is 23. FIVE 27-28 year old performances that are in the top 25, all time, were QB's who came through the Packers between '92-'11. If one adds their 25 and 26 aged years Rodgers is 1, Favre is 3, Brooks is 9, Brunell is 18, and Hasselbeck is 52 (because only has three years as a starter over the age frame 25-28, if one were to take Hasselbeck's 29 year old AV for his missing 25 year old AV, he'd rank out at 31). It's amazing what the Packers have generated as far as QB'ing the last 20 years and Flynn is yet to be seen. But then again, considering ****ey and Majkowski, QB'ing wasn't the worst of the Packers' problems, at least for most of The Dark Years. Once the Packers figured out how to get quality players, offensive lines that could keep a QB vertical, backs who could rush/catch/block, defenses that were at least top third in the league, and had coaches and/or quality schemes the Packers were at the top of the charts. And they had extra QB's to spare (and assistant coaches to be HC elsewhere too). So much talent at every level.

That's interesting... Good way to really compare players throughout their careers.

 

[Headrush]

^^^^^^^^



I would disagree with that one. A lot of Favre's "wow factor" came from doing something incredibly stupid and somehow getting away with it and turning it into a big play. The problem was that he would also do the same incredibly stupid thing the next week and turn it into a big play for the OTHER team. (That's why we all knew what was about to happen when Favre pissed away the 2009-10 NFCC game with that INT.) In four seasons, I have yet to see Rodgers do a single incredibly stupid thing on the field.

Exactly!

 

[burt packerack]

I was a nervous wreck when favre dropped back, but with Aaron i can relax and watch the game (on offense at least).