more favre rodgers national press

[ivo610]

Great Debate: Can Rodgers overtake Favre? - NFC North Blog - ESPN

 

[ivo610]

Trashing Starr? Not only is that ignorant, its tasteless. Typical for a former Vikings beat writer.

 

[Powarun]

Yeah, that is mostly what I got out of the article was that they shouldn't put down Starr. The Rodgers vs Favre debate can only be said in time, and if the Packers get their act together and bring home the Lombardi trophy.

 

[YouFrgotPoland]

I read through that earlier today, I thought he was being facetious when talking about Starr. But I could be wrong, I'll have to read through it again.

 

[LAG]

Pure ignorance whats written about Starr in that article. IMO, Favre is a "stat man." It would be nice if Rodgers ends up like Starr-with a lot of hardware on his hands, not just a load of stats to boast about.

 

[Packy]

Do you folks all think that Rodgers cares about if he is the best ever in Packers history? NFL?
I agree with the point that he may not play long enough to surpass Favre, Starr, or maybe even ****ey... However, I do think that right now, he is better than Favre. He could also be better than Starr.

We don't know how long he will be in the NFL, or the Packers but I think he will make Packers a force to be recogned with everytime he takes the field. The question remains, will the Packers have the quality of team that Favre had when he played or as Starr did in his years of Packers Glory...?

 

[Raptorman]

Actually, I think Gene smacks Starr more than Seafart. Just read the following which is what Seafart is referring to.

I agree with you about the pure numbers versus greatest Packers quarterback of all time. It isn't a prerequisite. In fact, I'd argue that Rodgers first has to surpass the legacy of Bart Starr before we start worrying about Favre. I'm guessing there are Packers fans who flip Starr for Favre.

Is he not putting Favre above Starr in that sentence? Or am I reading that wrong?

 

[PackersRS]

Two ignorant gentleman talking about something they have no idea about.

They base their whole argument on who has more yards and tds. They never even get into the merit of who actually played better.

Seifert calling Starr a 'caretaker" when he has the best postseason qb rating of all time made me blood boil. But then again, I shouldn't get riled up with someone that's stupid enough to say that.

 

[Aaron rodgers is god]

Rodgers brings a better attitude to the game. If rodgers can continue to throw 30 touchdown and 10 picks or less. We can agree that he is the better decision maker. Rodgers would have to play a long time to beat his Favres records. Rodgers has a better shot of beating him in the superbowl count. I beleive Rodgers can play better than Favre in the playoffs. Favre never really shined in the playoffs not to mention all his careless picks in big situations. Rodgers showed me something in that wild card game. He showed that he can lead his team in bad situations and play well in tough games.

 

[gbpack12_2_89]

When it comes down to it I believe that Rodgers will be the 2nd best QB the Packers have ever had and number one will be Bart Starr. Even if Rodgers wins 2-3 superbowls I still think that Starr will be the best QB the Packers have ever had.

 

[ivo610]

Just like Rodney Dangerfield, Starr gets no respect.

It seems like alot of the packer greats get no respect besides Lombardi. Hutson? I have never heard a current player mention him in the all time greats. Jim Taylor out rushed Jim Brown one year but no one talks about it. No respect. Sharpe was amazing but I think his brother is the only one to mention him.

 

[ivo610]

Just read today that brett is 13 sacks away from the all time record for most sacks (elway 516).

I know someone last week pointed out he is only 3 away from the most fumbles.

 

[turbo69]

Just read today that brett is 13 sacks away from the all time record for most sacks (elway 516).

I know someone last week pointed out he is only 3 away from the most fumbles.

Most Fumbles? Isn't that record owned by a (ex) Seahawks QB????

 

[turbo69]

ok....just looked it up. Warren Moon owns the fumble record with 161 and Favre is at 157.

 

[The_Ohioan_Cheesehead]

Only way Rodgers can surpass Starr is Leading the Pack for another Dynasty of this Decade. Like Starr did in the 60s.

I hated that article dont give Starr any credit.

 

[JBlood]

The Interceptor has fumbles 159 times, losing 119 of them. Warren Moon fumbles 161 times and lost 105. So the Interceptor is also the all-time leading Fumbler-Loser. We can shorten that to Loser.

 

[JBlood]

317 interceptions and 119 fumbles lost= 436 times The Diva has given away the ball. That works out to about 1.6 turnovers/game played. His overall record in the NFL is 181/104. How many games lost did his turnovers create? How many Championships were literally thrown away??

 

[The_Ohioan_Cheesehead]

317 interceptions and 119 fumbles lost= 436 times The Diva has given away the ball. That works out to about 1.6 turnovers/game played. His overall record in the NFL is 181/104. How many games lost did his turnovers create? How many Championships were literally thrown away??

Too many to count.

Specially the 2008 NFC Title Game Ugh.. Literally thrown away...

 

[gbforever]

This all goes back to something that was brought up in another thread, that ignorant people (mostly fans of teams that accomplished nothing in those eras) consider anything pre-Super Bowl era or pre-merger to be less significant than what players accomplish today.

Favre has not brought the Packers the number of championships that Bart Starr (5) and Arnie Herber (4) have, and yet everyone considers Favre to be superior because he won one in the modern era. Hell, Herber isn't even mentioned.

Favre's career stats are greater because it is a more pass happy league, modern rules favor QBS, and there are more games in a season. Favre never had to face the challenges that Starr and Herber had to face in eras where violent QB hits were common and DBs could maul recievers to prevent completions.

Favre nutt lovers will continue to argue that Starr only won that many championships because he had Lombardi coaching him and that the running game with Hornung and Taylor was the winning formula. While the running game certainly was a big factor with those two also underated legends, Starr still was still the definition of a clutch QB with many game winning drives and scores to his credit. I've also heard that Hutson (another legend who doesn't get his dues) was what made Herber great, never mind that he won two titles before Hutson showed up.

Favre was all about individual success but when it comes to leading a team to greatness there are many better QBs throughout NFL history.

 

[JBlood]

This all goes back to something that was brought up in another thread, that ignorant people (mostly fans of teams that accomplished nothing in those eras) consider anything pre-Super Bowl era or pre-merger to be less significant than what players accomplish today.

Favre has not brought the Packers the number of championships that Bart Starr (5) and Arnie Herber (4) have, and yet everyone considers Favre to be superior because he won one in the modern era. Hell, Herber isn't even mentioned.

Favre's career stats are greater because it is a more pass happy league, modern rules favor QBS, and there are more games in a season. Favre never had to face the challenges that Starr and Herber had to face in eras where violent QB hits were common and DBs could maul recievers to prevent completions.

Favre nutt lovers will continue to argue that Starr only won that many championships because he had Lombardi coaching him and that the running game with Hornung and Taylor was the winning formula. While the running game certainly was a big factor with those two also underated legends, Starr still was still the definition of a clutch QB with many game winning drives and scores to his credit. I've also heard that Hutson (another legend who doesn't get his dues) was what made Herber great, never mind that he won two titles before Hutson showed up.

Favre was all about individual success but when it comes to leading a team to greatness there are many better QBs throughout NFL history.

Yup--the league caters to Fantasy Football. The team comes second. Favre is the poster boy.