It's become so clear

[Hauschild]

So which would you rather have? The sacks or the picks? Because Rodgers would throw it if someone would get open, Favre would often throw it no matter what.

The picks. Brett threw about 10 more per season than Rodgers, but Brett also took far fewer sacks which resulted in fewer yards lost and more first downs gained. And, when you move the chains, you increase your chances for points, which then directly correlates to wins.

It isn't rocket science why Brett Favre wins wherever he goes.

 

[3irty1]

It isn't rocket science why Brett Favre wins wherever he goes.

Brain Science is the new Rocket Science.

 

[MplsPacker]

If I had to start the 92 Packers over again with either Favre or Rodgers... no doubt, Favre FTW.

 

[MplsPacker]

whoops, wrong thread.

 

[PackersRS]

If I had to start the 92 Packers over again with either Favre or Rodgers... no doubt, Favre FTW.

Sad it's not 92, it's 2009, one is 40, the other 25...

Doughsellz is totally right, but don't know if intention. If Favre was not in Minnesota, they don't win that game. Pure and simple.

But there's just NO WAY of telling if Favre was at Green Bay and Rodgers at Minnesota, GB would've won. There's no point in arguing that, because one cannot prove. Different situations between 2009 and 2007, MUCH different. Of course, I cannot stop anyone from discussing anything. One can discuss if God does or doesn't exist, as well...