Favre and Rodgers as Packers After 16 Seasons

[Labrev]

As for the leadership angle... I dunno, I feel like Rodgers has earned the benefit-of-the-doubt that if he thinks a throw was too risky, it probably was, and there is a kind of faith that comes with that kind of stability/reliability: guy knows what he's doing, we can count on him not to lose the game for us, we just need to do our part similarly mistake-free and we're good.

I can agree that he's been guilty of crossing into playing scared and demoralizing his team (namely in a few of our bigger games) but is it per-se better to gunsling than play safe ala Rodgers? meh, I wouldn't go that far.

[salmar80]

Maybe I'm in the minority with this opinion but I absolutely cannot stand watching QB's take sacks or throw the ball away because they are too afraid to give a teammate a chance to make a play. It is the most demoralizing thing to see and it often is a total momentum changer- even moreso than an INT.

It would be interesting to compare the number of drive-killing plays between the two of them, whether it's sacks, INTs, or whatever.

Sacks really suck, but I can't agree; picks are still way worse and bigger momentum-shifters, like, 9 times out of 10, IMHO. The 1 exception being when you're in a true "do or die" situation and need to make a play, then it's better to throw a prayer and hope your guy comes down with it.

It's hard to appreciate how bad INTs are after over a decade of Rodgers, who throws them so rarely that even when he does, we don't get that mad and they're often not too costly. When we inevitably regress to the mean at INTs by our QB, I think we will start to appreciate again how bad INTs are.

I think our bad STs have helped make drive killing sacks and throwaways seem worse. Haven't been able to pin the opponent deep, like you should be able to. With this year's D, I want the other team have to work for every yard instead of gifting short field with an INT.

I do agree that AR sometimes avoids 50/50 balls too much. I don't fault him for not doing cross his body desperation passes over the middle, or avoiding throwing into double coverage.

[Realist]

Maybe I'm in the minority with this opinion but I absolutely cannot stand watching QB's take sacks or throw the ball away because they are too afraid to give a teammate a chance to make a play. It is the most demoralizing thing to see and it often is a total momentum changer- even moreso than an INT.

It would be interesting to compare the number of drive-killing plays between the two of them, whether it's sacks, INTs, or whatever.

Sacks really suck, but I can't agree; picks are still way worse and bigger momentum-shifters, like, 9 times out of 10, IMHO. The 1 exception being when you're in a true "do or die" situation and need to make a play, then it's better to throw a prayer and hope your guy comes down with it.

It's hard to appreciate how bad INTs are after over a decade of Rodgers, who throws them so rarely that even when he does, we don't get that mad and they're often not too costly. When we inevitably regress to the mean at INTs by our QB, I think we will start to appreciate again how bad INTs are.

I think our bad STs have helped make drive killing sacks and throwaways seem worse. Haven't been able to pin the opponent deep, like you should be able to. With this year's D, I want the other team have to work for every yard instead of gifting short field with an INT.

I do agree that AR sometimes avoids 50/50 balls too much. I don't fault him for not doing cross his body desperation passes over the middle, or avoiding throwing into double coverage.

So tired of the special teams thing. Also do people really say "meh" in real life? Never heard of it.

[Captain_Ben]

As for the leadership angle... I dunno, I feel like Rodgers has earned the benefit-of-the-doubt that if he thinks a throw was too risky, it probably was, and there is a kind of faith that comes with that kind of stability/reliability: guy knows what he's doing, we can count on him not to lose the game for us, we just need to do our part similarly mistake-free and we're good.

I can agree that he's been guilty of crossing into playing scared and demoralizing his team (namely in a few of our bigger games) but is it per-se better to gunsling than play safe ala Rodgers? meh, I wouldn't go that far.

I get where you're coming from with this but I try to imagine what it'd be like to be one of his receivers in that situation. There have been numerous examples cited on this forum of Rodgers opting to throw it out of bounds or take a sack instead of giving a receiver a chance to make a play in 1 on 1 coverage. That is basically telling the receiver, without actually telling him, "I don't think you're as good as the guy defending you so I'm not throwing it." Not exactly a confidence booster. I'm not saying go on an interception free for all, but I am saying that maybe if Rodgers were to say "$%@# it, I'll risk throwing low double digit picks on the season and thus take less sacks and throwaways if it gives us a better chance to win," then maybe we could grind out W's against the SF's of the world. Instead of reverting to the same old deer in the headlights, I don't trust my receivers schtick.

Sorry for the word salad there.

[Pugger]

Rodgers's most impressive feats can outdo Favre's, and his biggest fails are still nowhere near as ugly (or numerous) as BrINT"s.

I think most will agree that AR's biggest fail is his tendency to hold on to the ball too long. Maybe I'm in the minority with this opinion but I absolutely cannot stand watching QB's take sacks or throw the ball away because they are too afraid to give a teammate a chance to make a play. It is the most demoralizing thing to see and it often is a total momentum changer- even moreso than an INT. At least when a QB takes a shot downfield it sends the message to his teammates that he trusts them to make a big play. Playing scared as a leader just sends the wrong message in a lot of different ways.

I don't consider a QB is playing scared like you are suggesting. Taking a sack or throwing the ball out of bounds is a much better option than throwing a pick, especially on your own side of the field. Live to run another play without giving your opponent momentum.

[Yoop]

As for the leadership angle... I dunno, I feel like Rodgers has earned the benefit-of-the-doubt that if he thinks a throw was too risky, it probably was, and there is a kind of faith that comes with that kind of stability/reliability: guy knows what he's doing, we can count on him not to lose the game for us, we just need to do our part similarly mistake-free and we're good.

I can agree that he's been guilty of crossing into playing scared and demoralizing his team (namely in a few of our bigger games) but is it per-se better to gunsling than play safe ala Rodgers? meh, I wouldn't go that far.

I get where you're coming from with this but I try to imagine what it'd be like to be one of his receivers in that situation. There have been numerous examples cited on this forum of Rodgers opting to throw it out of bounds or take a sack instead of giving a receiver a chance to make a play in 1 on 1 coverage. That is basically telling the receiver, without actually telling him, "I don't think you're as good as the guy defending you so I'm not throwing it." Not exactly a confidence booster. I'm not saying go on an interception free for all, but I am saying that maybe if Rodgers were to say "$%@# it, I'll risk throwing low double digit picks on the season and thus take less sacks and throwaways if it gives us a better chance to win," then maybe we could grind out W's against the SF's of the world. Instead of reverting to the same old deer in the headlights, I don't trust my receivers schtick.

Sorry for the word salad there.

name the receivers we've had in the last 6 years better then the DB's covering them? I get your point but if you want Rodgers throwing into tight windows he has to have faith that the receiver can win the contest, which in my opinion he hasn't had.

we see momentum shifts with turnovers, look how devastating it was when Lewis fumbled last year, often it's so demoralizing a team can't recover, mistakes often breed more mistakes.

most teams start playoff games tentative for just that reason, coaches know any type of mis cue or mistake will cause players to over think, and become overly cautious.

when Rodgers had trust with his receivers there was no window to tight.

[salmar80]

As for the leadership angle... I dunno, I feel like Rodgers has earned the benefit-of-the-doubt that if he thinks a throw was too risky, it probably was, and there is a kind of faith that comes with that kind of stability/reliability: guy knows what he's doing, we can count on him not to lose the game for us, we just need to do our part similarly mistake-free and we're good.

I can agree that he's been guilty of crossing into playing scared and demoralizing his team (namely in a few of our bigger games) but is it per-se better to gunsling than play safe ala Rodgers? meh, I wouldn't go that far.

I get where you're coming from with this but I try to imagine what it'd be like to be one of his receivers in that situation. There have been numerous examples cited on this forum of Rodgers opting to throw it out of bounds or take a sack instead of giving a receiver a chance to make a play in 1 on 1 coverage. That is basically telling the receiver, without actually telling him, "I don't think you're as good as the guy defending you so I'm not throwing it." Not exactly a confidence booster. I'm not saying go on an interception free for all, but I am saying that maybe if Rodgers were to say "$%@# it, I'll risk throwing low double digit picks on the season and thus take less sacks and throwaways if it gives us a better chance to win," then maybe we could grind out W's against the SF's of the world. Instead of reverting to the same old deer in the headlights, I don't trust my receivers schtick.

Sorry for the word salad there.

name the receivers we've had in the last 6 years better then the DB's covering them? I get your point but if you want Rodgers throwing into tight windows he has to have faith that the receiver can win the contest, which in my opinion he hasn't had.

we see momentum shifts with turnovers, look how devastating it was when Lewis fumbled last year, often it's so demoralizing a team can't recover, mistakes often breed more mistakes.

most teams start playoff games tentative for just that reason, coaches know any type of mis cue or mistake will cause players to over think, and become overly cautious.

when Rodgers had trust with his receivers there was no window to tight.

Naah, this one doesn't fit your favorite narrative. You see, Rodgers was similarly INT averse (and took a lot of sacks) when he had the best WR crews of his career. He didn't throw into tight windows then, he doesn't do that now.

INT avoidance is just the way he has decided to play all his career, probably because he saw the damage Favre's INTs caused.

[wallyuwl]

Wonder what seeing up close #4 throw 30 picks in 2005 had? But that was a bad team and BF was just trying to make things happen himself.

[Crazylegs Starks]

OT post incoming:

.... Also do people really say "meh" in real life? Never heard of it.

Yes, but most of the time it sounds more like "eh" to me (which is not the same as the Canadian "eh".) It's a Yiddish word, but The Simpsons made it mainstream.

[Yoop]

I get where you're coming from with this but I try to imagine what it'd be like to be one of his receivers in that situation. There have been numerous examples cited on this forum of Rodgers opting to throw it out of bounds or take a sack instead of giving a receiver a chance to make a play in 1 on 1 coverage. That is basically telling the receiver, without actually telling him, "I don't think you're as good as the guy defending you so I'm not throwing it." Not exactly a confidence booster. I'm not saying go on an interception free for all, but I am saying that maybe if Rodgers were to say "$%@# it, I'll risk throwing low double digit picks on the season and thus take less sacks and throwaways if it gives us a better chance to win," then maybe we could grind out W's against the SF's of the world. Instead of reverting to the same old deer in the headlights, I don't trust my receivers schtick.

Sorry for the word salad there.

name the receivers we've had in the last 6 years better then the DB's covering them? I get your point but if you want Rodgers throwing into tight windows he has to have faith that the receiver can win the contest, which in my opinion he hasn't had.

we see momentum shifts with turnovers, look how devastating it was when Lewis fumbled last year, often it's so demoralizing a team can't recover, mistakes often breed more mistakes.

most teams start playoff games tentative for just that reason, coaches know any type of mis cue or mistake will cause players to over think, and become overly cautious.

when Rodgers had trust with his receivers there was no window to tight.

Naah, this one doesn't fit your favorite narrative. You see, Rodgers was similarly INT averse (and took a lot of sacks) when he had the best WR crews of his career. He didn't throw into tight windows then, he doesn't do that now.

INT avoidance is just the way he has decided to play all his career, probably because he saw the damage Favre's INTs caused.

McCarthy was the interception adverse guy, he reeled in Favre and instilled the same mind set with Rodgers, and also devised routes designed to be less susceptible to interceptions, spread verticals, iso routes tend to be 1x1 coverage, this is a McCarthy thing, and Rodgers learned his lessons well.

and he's always thrown into tight windows, you just refuse to except the out right trash we've had a receiver, why don't you go rewatch some off his games when he had good ones.

[salmar80]

McCarthy was the interception adverse guy, he reeled in Favre and instilled the same mind set with Rodgers, and also devised routes designed to be less susceptible to interceptions, spread verticals, iso routes tend to be 1x1 coverage, this is a McCarthy thing, and Rodgers learned his lessons well.

and he's always thrown into tight windows, you just refuse to except the out right trash we've had a receiver, why don't you go rewatch some off his games when he had good ones.

I agree he has had bad WR corps in recent years, but it hasn't affected his INT avoidance. He didn't throw very risky balls to Jordy any more than he does to some Taco Wallace. The difference is the scrubs get open less, so he ends up with more throwaways and scrambles.

To be clear, tight window isn't the same as a risky throw. For example to the timing on super safe backshoulder throws is tight. What AR tries to avoid is things like throws into double coverage and tight window throws over a crowded middle, since those can get tipped easily at line, a drop can be fatal and it's hard to see through traffic.

AR has had such a long career that you can find examples of when he's broken his rules and has taken unnecessary risks. But those moments have been rare.

[Yoop]

McCarthy was the interception adverse guy, he reeled in Favre and instilled the same mind set with Rodgers, and also devised routes designed to be less susceptible to interceptions, spread verticals, iso routes tend to be 1x1 coverage, this is a McCarthy thing, and Rodgers learned his lessons well.

and he's always thrown into tight windows, you just refuse to except the out right trash we've had a receiver, why don't you go rewatch some off his games when he had good ones.

I agree he has had bad WR corps in recent years, but it hasn't affected his INT avoidance. He didn't throw very risky balls to Jordy any more than he does to some Taco Wallace. The difference is the scrubs get open less, so he ends up with more throwaways and scrambles.

To be clear, tight window isn't the same as a risky throw. For example to the timing on super safe backshoulder throws is tight. What AR tries to avoid is things like throws into double coverage and tight window throws over a crowded middle, since those can get tipped easily at line, a drop can be fatal and it's hard to see through traffic.

AR has had such a long career that you can find examples of when he's broken his rules and has taken unnecessary risks. But those moments have been rare.

nice explanation

I'am glad Rodgers doesn't act desperate and take unnecessary risks, I disagree though that tight windows doesn't constitute risk because it usually does, you fail to acknowledge that more average QB's tend to get plenty of those picked off.

Rodgers didn't design the routes, and he had no issues throwing over the middle when he had receivers he could trust to be at the pitch point on schedule, Cobb had his best season with catches short middle, same with Adams

If Lazard becomes a 80 reception player for a K then we can blame Rodgers, if not, then I rest my case, and I'll keep defending him ( your banner is so cute) over most of the receivers he's had to work with the last 5 years, Tonyan caught most of his passes in the middle of the field 2 years ago.

right the interior has more risk, more so even when the talent pool is thin, if ya don't have the talent to run short crossers, then you dont do much of that, thats not so much a Rodgers short coming, it's a lack of receiver ability thing.

I don't see a lot of change between AR 2011 and now, whats changed is the talent depth at WR, which hopefully is being replenished, also MLF has adjusted the passing schemes to fit the increased dependence on pass rush QB's face these days, they just don't have the time for the deep routes to unfold, so short, over the middle passing is in vogue, Doubs, A. Rodgers, Cobb, should do well, but actually most of our guys should.

IMO some of the best short game offense happened 2 years ago, we did a lot of mis direction, and Rodgers was getting the ball out hot right over the middle, so I don't think he's adverse to that stuff, but why gamble if ya don't think the other end can pull there weight.

[go pak go]

I don't know what you're trying to argue here yoop.

It's like you're trying to defend that Rodgers "still got it" when that statement is pretty damn obvious. He is the MVP two years in a row. Yeah. He's still got it.

The only complaint is postseason play which comes down to 3 - 5 plays that defines every team's season.

That is one and done football. It puts maximum pressure on a very limited amount of snaps. That's the issue here.

Nobody is going to argue that Rodgers isn't freaking amazing. Because he is. It's just those few plays where he needed to step up and make a play for the team and didn't.

[APB]

I don't know what you're trying to argue here yoop.

It's like you're trying to defend that Rodgers "still got it" when that statement is pretty damn obvious. He is the MVP two years in a row. Yeah. He's still got it.

The only complaint is postseason play which comes down to 3 - 5 plays that defines every team's season.

That is one and done football. It puts maximum pressure on a very limited amount of snaps. That's the issue here.

Nobody is going to argue that Rodgers isn't freaking amazing. Because he is. It's just those few plays where he needed to step up and make a play for the team and didn't.

[Yoop]

I don't know what you're trying to argue here yoop.

It's like you're trying to defend that Rodgers "still got it" when that statement is pretty damn obvious. He is the MVP two years in a row. Yeah. He's still got it.

The only complaint is postseason play which comes down to 3 - 5 plays that defines every team's season.

That is one and done football. It puts maximum pressure on a very limited amount of snaps. That's the issue here.

Nobody is going to argue that Rodgers isn't freaking amazing. Because he is. It's just those few plays where he needed to step up and make a play for the team and didn't.

well if you follow the back and forth the debate had nothing to do with a play or two he didn't make it was about Rodgers not taking risk, which is false.

[Captain_Ben]

As for the leadership angle... I dunno, I feel like Rodgers has earned the benefit-of-the-doubt that if he thinks a throw was too risky, it probably was, and there is a kind of faith that comes with that kind of stability/reliability: guy knows what he's doing, we can count on him not to lose the game for us, we just need to do our part similarly mistake-free and we're good.

I can agree that he's been guilty of crossing into playing scared and demoralizing his team (namely in a few of our bigger games) but is it per-se better to gunsling than play safe ala Rodgers? meh, I wouldn't go that far.

I get where you're coming from with this but I try to imagine what it'd be like to be one of his receivers in that situation. There have been numerous examples cited on this forum of Rodgers opting to throw it out of bounds or take a sack instead of giving a receiver a chance to make a play in 1 on 1 coverage. That is basically telling the receiver, without actually telling him, "I don't think you're as good as the guy defending you so I'm not throwing it." Not exactly a confidence booster. I'm not saying go on an interception free for all, but I am saying that maybe if Rodgers were to say "$%@# it, I'll risk throwing low double digit picks on the season and thus take less sacks and throwaways if it gives us a better chance to win," then maybe we could grind out W's against the SF's of the world. Instead of reverting to the same old deer in the headlights, I don't trust my receivers schtick.

Sorry for the word salad there.

name the receivers we've had in the last 6 years better then the DB's covering them? I get your point but if you want Rodgers throwing into tight windows he has to have faith that the receiver can win the contest, which in my opinion he hasn't had.

we see momentum shifts with turnovers, look how devastating it was when Lewis fumbled last year, often it's so demoralizing a team can't recover, mistakes often breed more mistakes.

most teams start playoff games tentative for just that reason, coaches know any type of mis cue or mistake will cause players to over think, and become overly cautious.

when Rodgers had trust with his receivers there was no window to tight.

Yeah, it's tough. I honestly go back and forth between "throw the damned ball" and "the receivers suck." At the end of the day, it's probably a bit of both.

[German_Panzer]

Rodgers > Favre.
Rodgers > Brady
Rodgers > Peyton

But being the best on an individual level does not mean a lot in a team sport like Football. A guy like Favre had natural authority and charisma over his teammates, something that Rodgers is not able to summon and that might be an underestimated difference maker.

But things look good for Favre. Let's be honest. Around 2010 Brett really must have been worried about his ego bc at that time it looked like #12 would win 5 titles and make him look like Robin vs. Batman. As of now Rodgers is not on another level compared to #4. But of course there are those coulda-shoulda-wouldas. If Rodgers wins 2012, 2015 and 2022 - and he just needed a little bit of luck for it to happen, in all three cases he was close - he's right there with Brady and Favre is looking meh compared to him.

[Scott4Pack]

Is the original “question” for this thread, 1) Who is the better overall QB, 2) Who is better at this point in their career, or 3) something else, as in whatever we make it?

If the question is about who is the better passer of the football, you can’t do anything but support Rodgers, for he is perhaps the finest of all time in that.

If the question is about who is better after this many seasons, take Rodgers. Favre started to deteriorate quite a lot in cold weather games after a certain point. Rodgers is perhaps even getting better in cold weather games than earlier in his career.

If the question is about who did more with the teams that he had, you really can’t do anything other than nit-pick that. They’ve both had more and less at different times.

But who has really DONE more after this many seasons? That’s a tough call. But don’t undercut Favre. He had more intangibles on his side than virtually any QB ever; hustle, imagination, leadership (after White left), joy of the game, creativity on the field, and so on. You never doubted that Favre spent all that he had on the field and the teams responded to him in that. Prior to the past three seasons, we actually wondered if Rodgers had gone into a lull. And his teams lost more games be freak reasons than any team that I can ever recall.

Overall, there are very good reasons that both of them are HOF guys. It’s just nit-picky to say if one is better than the other, I think. We’ve had it sooooo good to have them both.

[Foosball]

If Rodgers had gone to SF as the first pick in the draft, I don’t think he has the same career. Alex Smith went through 4 different offensive coordinators in 5 years.

Instead Rodgers got to sit for three years and learn from Favre. Rodgers played in the same system for most of his career. He had a down year his first year in LaFleurs offense.

Favre didn’t need to be developed. He was a stallion as soon as he took the field. He didn’t even know what nickel or dime cover was and he didn’t care. Favre went on to win 3 straight MVPs. Reggie white came to GB because of Favre. Green Bay was no longer the outpost where no one wanted to play.

Brett paved the way for Rodgers career. Rodgers had the talent to take advantage of it.

[Crazylegs Starks]

...
Favre didn’t need to be developed. He was a stallion as soon as he took the field. He didn’t even know what nickel or dime cover was and he didn’t care. Favre went on to win 3 straight MVPs. Reggie white came to GB because of Favre. Green Bay was no longer the outpost where no one wanted to play
...

Uh, no, Favre absolutely had to be developed. He was on a short leash his first two, maybe two-and-a-half seasons due to his inconsistency. There were serious discussions about benching him for Mark Brunell at times, but Holmgren couldn't bring himself to do it.

Wild stallion maybe.