From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
which came first, the decline of the wr position group, or the QB? in both cases between Favre and Rodgers ( and almost every great QB) the WR group had declined and the QB couldn't do as well with the WR's he had available.
Favre is a good example, he took more chances with riskier throws towards the end, and we saw a bounce back season from him as soon as we drafted Greg Jennings, once the receivers are unable to get open on schedule the QB will tend to gamble more, and do stuff they wouldn't normally do, which also happened with Rodgers, who while use to extending plays, was forced to do so more often with the decline of Nelson and Cobb, obviously bad habits will also develop ( off balance throws, poor footwork, etc.)
both are/where great when they had a few quality receivers to work with
I don’t think Rodgers is miles ahead of Favre. Favre at least won 2 NFCCGs. Rodgers is far more risk adverse, which 90% of the time Thats a good thing. But then this past year before the half Rodgers decided to get risky, throws a pick, and the bucs score before the half off of it. As someone else stated, I’m more confident Favre gets the ball in the end zone on that 3rd and 8, or as they said, at least goes down swinging with an INT. I think when people think of Favre now, they think of the end. I think of the mid 90s bc that’s when I was a little kid writing book reports on biographies of Vince Lombardi, the ice bowl, and obsessed with Brett Favre in mid elementary school.
As it’s been stated...3 MVPs, and 2 Súper bowl appearances, and a ring just doesn’t equal miles behind Rodgers when you consider that Rodgers came in and was handed the keys to a luxary vehicle. Favre came in and resurrected the franchise from the tomb. Could Rodgers have done that if asked to start year one? Maybe, but I’m not 100% certain.
In my mind it's debatable whether he is ahead of Favre at all. Not only is Rodgers far more risk averse, he is far too risk averse. I actually didn't have a problem with the pick he threw against the Buccaneers; a player with his talent should be slinging it more often than he does. Favre did "sling it" way too often though. As you say, it's a matter of "going down swinging" versus "getting rung up looking." I'd prefer to go down swinging. I suspect we are around the same age because I grew up idolizing BF too. I didn't really start watching until 1998, though I can recall fragments of the MVP seasons.
Ultimately, both QB's were able to secure a SB win when they were surrounded by immense talent- particularly on the defensive side of the ball. I would say the 1996 and 2010 teams were pretty comparable, from an overall talent perspective. I tend to believe that the 2010 roster was slightly better. Though as I mentioned 1996 was the "infancy" of my fanhood, so I could be wrong.
I still say that if I had to pick one to play a game my life depended on, I'd go with Favre. Always left everything on the field and was always about football.
In my mind it's debatable whether he is ahead of Favre at all. Not only is Rodgers far more risk averse, he is far too risk averse. I actually didn't have a problem with the pick he threw against the Buccaneers; a player with his talent should be slinging it more often than he does. Favre did "sling it" way too often though. As you say, it's a matter of "going down swinging" versus "getting rung up looking." I'd prefer to go down swinging. I suspect we are around the same age because I grew up idolizing BF too. I didn't really start watching until 1998, though I can recall fragments of the MVP seasons.
Ultimately, both QB's were able to secure a SB win when they were surrounded by immense talent- particularly on the defensive side of the ball. I would say the 1996 and 2010 teams were pretty comparable, from an overall talent perspective. I tend to believe that the 2010 roster was slightly better. Though as I mentioned 1996 was the "infancy" of my fanhood, so I could be wrong.
I still say that if I had to pick one to play a game my life depended on, I'd go with Favre. Always left everything on the field and was always about football.
In my mind it's debatable whether he is ahead of Favre at all. Not only is Rodgers far more risk averse, he is far too risk averse. I actually didn't have a problem with the pick he threw against the Buccaneers; a player with his talent should be slinging it more often than he does. Favre did "sling it" way too often though. As you say, it's a matter of "going down swinging" versus "getting rung up looking." I'd prefer to go down swinging. I suspect we are around the same age because I grew up idolizing BF too. I didn't really start watching until 1998, though I can recall fragments of the MVP seasons.
Ultimately, both QB's were able to secure a SB win when they were surrounded by immense talent- particularly on the defensive side of the ball. I would say the 1996 and 2010 teams were pretty comparable, from an overall talent perspective. I tend to believe that the 2010 roster was slightly better. Though as I mentioned 1996 was the "infancy" of my fanhood, so I could be wrong.
I still say that if I had to pick one to play a game my life depended on, I'd go with Favre. Always left everything on the field and was always about football.
In my mind it's debatable whether he is ahead of Favre at all. Not only is Rodgers far more risk averse, he is far too risk averse. I actually didn't have a problem with the pick he threw against the Buccaneers; a player with his talent should be slinging it more often than he does. Favre did "sling it" way too often though. As you say, it's a matter of "going down swinging" versus "getting rung up looking." I'd prefer to go down swinging. I suspect we are around the same age because I grew up idolizing BF too. I didn't really start watching until 1998, though I can recall fragments of the MVP seasons.
Ultimately, both QB's were able to secure a SB win when they were surrounded by immense talent- particularly on the defensive side of the ball. I would say the 1996 and 2010 teams were pretty comparable, from an overall talent perspective. I tend to believe that the 2010 roster was slightly better. Though as I mentioned 1996 was the "infancy" of my fanhood, so I could be wrong.
I still say that if I had to pick one to play a game my life depended on, I'd go with Favre. Always left everything on the field and was always about football.
Theres no possible way you believe this.
Just say no to drugs.
Rodgers would have been sacked out of the league had he played in the 90's.
Rodgers would have been sacked out of the league had he played in the 90's.
Not sure if sacked is the right word, but Rodgers is a soft QB. Without the bogus roughing the passer rules he would not have lasted 5 years. Favre was the better QB. Ben is right.
Rodgers would have been sacked out of the league had he played in the 90's.
Not sure if sacked is the right word, but Rodgers is a soft QB. Without the bogus roughing the passer rules he would not have lasted 5 years. Favre was the better QB. Ben is right.
I think he was saying sacked out of the league because he hangs onto the ball so long.
I don’t think Rodgers is miles ahead of Favre. Favre at least won 2 NFCCGs. Rodgers is far more risk adverse, which 90% of the time Thats a good thing. But then this past year before the half Rodgers decided to get risky, throws a pick, and the bucs score before the half off of it. As someone else stated, I’m more confident Favre gets the ball in the end zone on that 3rd and 8, or as they said, at least goes down swinging with an INT. I think when people think of Favre now, they think of the end. I think of the mid 90s bc that’s when I was a little kid writing book reports on biographies of Vince Lombardi, the ice bowl, and obsessed with Brett Favre in mid elementary school.
As it’s been stated...3 MVPs, and 2 Súper bowl appearances, and a ring just doesn’t equal miles behind Rodgers when you consider that Rodgers came in and was handed the keys to a luxary vehicle. Favre came in and resurrected the franchise from the tomb. Could Rodgers have done that if asked to start year one? Maybe, but I’m not 100% certain.
In my mind it's debatable whether he is ahead of Favre at all. Not only is Rodgers far more risk averse, he is far too risk averse. I actually didn't have a problem with the pick he threw against the Buccaneers; a player with his talent should be slinging it more often than he does. Favre did "sling it" way too often though. As you say, it's a matter of "going down swinging" versus "getting rung up looking." I'd prefer to go down swinging. I suspect we are around the same age because I grew up idolizing BF too. I didn't really start watching until 1998, though I can recall fragments of the MVP seasons.
Ultimately, both QB's were able to secure a SB win when they were surrounded by immense talent- particularly on the defensive side of the ball. I would say the 1996 and 2010 teams were pretty comparable, from an overall talent perspective. I tend to believe that the 2010 roster was slightly better. Though as I mentioned 1996 was the "infancy" of my fanhood, so I could be wrong.
I still say that if I had to pick one to play a game my life depended on, I'd go with Favre. Always left everything on the field and was always about football.
Idk if it was this thread or not, but I posted somewhere that if you told me in 2011 that Favre would wind up with the more accomplished career, I'd have been shocked. And yet at this point that is exactly what is looking like will happen.
And yeah, the Favre magic matters too. The 30-year drought. His personality is way more of a fit for Wisconsin. The vast majority of players would likely rather follow Favre into battle than Rodgers and it's probably not close.
It's pretty easy- Rodgers wins another SB, he jumps ahead of Favre. Otherwise, he ranks lower at the end of the day.
Idk if it was this thread or not, but I posted somewhere that if you told me in 2011 that Favre would wind up with the more accomplished career, I'd have been shocked. And yet at this point that is exactly what is looking like will happen.
And yeah, the Favre magic matters too. The 30-year drought. His personality is way more of a fit for Wisconsin. The vast majority of players would likely rather follow Favre into battle than Rodgers and it's probably not close.
It's pretty easy- Rodgers wins another SB, he jumps ahead of Favre. Otherwise, he ranks lower at the end of the day.
I just cant believe people think Favre is better than Rodgers. Even with both at their peaks Rodgers shatters anything Favre was able to accomplish. All 3 of Rodgers MVP seasons are more impressive to me. Both great players but Rodgers is top 5 all time easily. Favre might not even be in the top 10 right now.
I will agree that most players would probably follow Favre if given the choice. Hes a more fun guy. If I was any good I would absolutely follow Rodgers because Im all about winning. That is the only thing that matters. You have to have a certain type of personality to be around people like that. Betas are often intimidated by winners.
In my mind it's debatable whether he is ahead of Favre at all. Not only is Rodgers far more risk averse, he is far too risk averse. I actually didn't have a problem with the pick he threw against the Buccaneers; a player with his talent should be slinging it more often than he does. Favre did "sling it" way too often though. As you say, it's a matter of "going down swinging" versus "getting rung up looking." I'd prefer to go down swinging. I suspect we are around the same age because I grew up idolizing BF too. I didn't really start watching until 1998, though I can recall fragments of the MVP seasons.
Ultimately, both QB's were able to secure a SB win when they were surrounded by immense talent- particularly on the defensive side of the ball. I would say the 1996 and 2010 teams were pretty comparable, from an overall talent perspective. I tend to believe that the 2010 roster was slightly better. Though as I mentioned 1996 was the "infancy" of my fanhood, so I could be wrong.
I still say that if I had to pick one to play a game my life depended on, I'd go with Favre. Always left everything on the field and was always about football.
Theres no possible way you believe this.
I believe that a lot of people could believe this. I definitely get the frustration with Rodgers' great risk aversion, and it's easy to feel like a few INTs would be an acceptable price to pay for more great plays. But I gotta say, I've never been able to get behind that. With how little Rodgers throws picks, it's easy to underestimate how bad INTs are.
But no, Interceptions really are THAT bad. We saw it today, really. You get picked in the red-zone, like our first INT, you miss out on much-needed points. You get picked mid-field or deeper in your own territory, like our second, you set up the other team with great field position and/or easy points. Those picks basically sealed our fate today. I wish Rodgers would not be quite *as* cautious, or take as many sacks (you can be cautious AND avoid sacks, though) but I will can't get behind a few more INTs being an acceptable price for it.
I expect when we "regress to the mean" on INTs when Love takes over (only natural/inevitable, Rodgers's low pick production is unheard of), people will not be as forgiving about throwing picks as they think they would be and will maybe even realize how special the Rodgers period was at least in that respect. Then again, don't underestimate people's ability to cling to their beliefs.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
As for losing "better" by going down swinging... semantics, an L is an L (if you ask me). I would say we are at the same point with Rodgers as we were with Favre in '07: he can take a middling team to the playoffs, but he can't seem to get a playoff team over the hump.
With that said, I guess I would "prefer" Rodgers's losses to Favre. Rodgers does not put the game away and win it in the NFCCG, but Favre will just flat-out lose the game. At least with Rodgers, you have a shot if others on the team can bail him out.
We saw that in 2010 when our D came through. We arguably could have done it last year if we had just ridden AJ Dillon, or kept trying the outside run (which, contrary to what we expected going into the game, was actually working pretty effectively; we didn't have Lazard last time when TB shut it down). Or even in 2014 if Botsick ducks, or Haha breaks up that prayer that Wilson lobbed into the endzone, or Burnett does not dive prematurely/Peppers does not make him... the list goes on.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
Idk if it was this thread or not, but I posted somewhere that if you told me in 2011 that Favre would wind up with the more accomplished career, I'd have been shocked. And yet at this point that is exactly what is looking like will happen.
And yeah, the Favre magic matters too. The 30-year drought. His personality is way more of a fit for Wisconsin. The vast majority of players would likely rather follow Favre into battle than Rodgers and it's probably not close.
It's pretty easy- Rodgers wins another SB, he jumps ahead of Favre. Otherwise, he ranks lower at the end of the day.
I just cant believe people think Favre is better than Rodgers. Even with both at their peaks Rodgers shatters anything Favre was able to accomplish. All 3 of Rodgers MVP seasons are more impressive to me. Both great players but Rodgers is top 5 all time easily. Favre might not even be in the top 10 right now.
I will agree that most players would probably follow Favre if given the choice. Hes a more fun guy. If I was any good I would absolutely follow Rodgers because Im all about winning. That is the only thing that matters. You have to have a certain type of personality to be around people like that. Betas are often intimidated by winners.
Rodgers is the technically more gifted player but at this point you have to wonder if his particular leadership (and mental) qualities have in fact prevented us from reaching the potential that his physical gifts and throwing ability would otherwise have suggested. Because yeah, you watch them both at their peaks and it's not even close- Rodgers' throwing and general play blows Favre's out of the water. Not in arm strength but in just about every other facet. He also was more elusive (although Favre's style was to just truck the other guy). But his teams have frankly had more talent, and yet he has accomplished less, and looking back, a lot of that lack of accomplishment seems primarily due to his play in the playoffs.
I'm going to ignore the beta male comment for now because that's a discussion I don't think anyone here wants to sit through. But for now I'll just say that your ideas are probably wrong (I haven't heard them yet so I don't know, but if you think Rodgers is somehow too alpha and other players are intimidated by him because he is a "winner", then I bet you're wrong).
I think Favre had significantly more talented teams than Rodgers.
Possibly the early 90s but those Ray Rhodes and Sherman era teams were horse &%$@.
Favre got A LOT out of those 2001 to 2004 teams. He was coachable in 2007 and reinvented himself, just could not handle the extreme cold when it mattered most.
AR got a lot out of the 2012, 2013, and 2016 teams. Overall AR has had better talent around him and has been as responsible as anyone for most playoff losses.
I think Favre had significantly more talented teams than Rodgers.
Possibly the early 90s but those Ray Rhodes and Sherman era teams were horse &%$@.
Favre got A LOT out of those 2001 to 2004 teams. He was coachable in 2007 and reinvented himself, just could not handle the extreme cold when it mattered most.
AR got a lot out of the 2012, 2013, and 2016 teams. Overall AR has had better talent around him and has been as responsible as anyone for most playoff losses.
Favre had some damn good defenses to back him up in the 90s. Some of those Sherman teams weren’t that bad. Towards the end he definitely jacked them up. Clifton, Whale, Flanagan, Rivera, and Tausch is the best Packers line since the Lombardi era. Add Ahman Green, Driver, Walker, and Franks to that and that’s a solid unit. If I’m remembering right the defense had Sharper, KGB, maybe Barnett at that time, McKenzie, and Harris. That was a damn good team.
The 96 and 97 teams to me were better than anything Rodgers has had to work with.
I for sure thought we'd see twitter and forums flooded this morning with people saying Rodgers is tanking on purpose to stick it to the Packers. Maybe I'm missing it, but haven't seen it mentioned yet.
I'm disappointed in you internet. Missed opportunity.
