Rodgers vs TOG: 1st 7 years

I agree with several posters that both guys should have won 2-3 rings in their first 7 years as a starter. The difference is that is that Favre himself was the one who made the killer mistakes that prevented them from winning another Super Bowl. Counting his time in Minnesota, he threw an interception on the last offensive play for his team in a tie game in 3 playoff games that directly caused the loss (the Philly floater in OT, the Giants NFC championship game, and the throw across your body while in FG range Vikings-Saints NFCG). Every one of those was a decision that make him look like a rookie QB. Has any other QB even done that twice? Rodgers has never made a decision like that in any game, let alone the NFC Championship.

When Favre lost in the playoffs it was because the coaches put too much trust in him. At least this year, when Rodgers lost it was because the coaches didn't trust him enough (running three times into the middle after the last Wilson interception)

A gimpy Rodgers wasn't great vs. Seattle, but his clutch drive at the end of regulation tends to get overlooked. Give 12 the ball in OT in '03 and '07, and I feel pretty good about the  Packers chances to win both games.

Let's not forget about the over-adrenalized Favre at the beginning of those playoff games against Dallas. 

If reports are correct that MM considering pulling Favre at halftime of the NFCC in 2007, it would have been the ballsiest move by any NFL coach in history. But if Rodgers plays that game, they win in a blowout. Just the ability to have some QB runs would have been enough. Except for the play when the DB fell down and Driver was left wide open for a 90 yard TD that could have been delivered by Joel Stave, Favre was terrible for most of the game.

1992-94 Brett Favre was an average, inconsistent, and maddening (Pun most certainly intended) QB for the Green Bay Packers.  He averaged 23 TDs, 17 INTs, and had a QB Rating of 83.0 those 3 years.  Was 2-2 in the playoffs.  

1995-97 Brett Favre was a superb QB for the Green Bay Packers.  He averaged 37 TDs, 14 INTs, and had a QB rating of 96.1 those 3 years.  Was 7-2 in the playoffs going to 3 NFCC, 2 Super Bowls, and 1 Super Bowl win.

1998-2007 Brett Favre was an average, inconsistent, and maddening QB for the Green Bay Packers.  He averaged 26 TDs, 19 INTs, and had a QB Rating of 83.6  those 10 years.  He went 3-7 in the playoffs with on NFCC appearance. 

After GB, Favre had one season that fit within his superb stretch, and 2 seasons that fit within his average stretch.  

Favre played 19 years (not counting the 1 ATL year), and for 4 of those was as good a QB that there was.  Can't deny it, won't deny it.  Regardless of my personal feelings, in 95-97 he was clearly, hands down the best QB in the NFL.  Steve Young was close in QB Rating, but no where near as prolific in terms of TDs and production.  And, then again, in 2009 he was as good as there was in the NFL that year for him.   Those 4 years, he was amazing.  

But, the other 15 years?  He was basically Andy Dalton.  Go look at the stats.  Do the comparison.  He was Andy Dalton with a better supporting cast.  I'm not saying this because I hate Favre or I'm trying to bring him down.  Objectively, go look at QBs of late that are basically around an 80-85 QB Rating, with slightly over a 1:1 TD/INT ratio. For almost 80% of his career, he's Dalton.  He's Carson Palmer.  He's Jay Cutler.   

Here's Favre's superb 4 years in terms of TD, INT, Rating

38, 13, 99.5

39, 13, 95.8

35, 16, 92.6

33, 7, 107.2

Let's look at Rodgers WORST 4 years in those same terms

28, 13, 93.8

28, 11, 101.2

30, 7, 103.2

17, 6, 104.9

Frankly, there is no comparing Favre to Rodgers.  Rodgers worst 4 years thus far are way better in INTs and QB Rating and pretty damn close in TDs as Favre's best 4.  

A blowout vs. a team that took down the undefeated Pats?  I don't think so.

But if Rodgers had come in in the 2nd half and won that game..."packer nation" would have collapsed in on itself like a red giant and gone supernova.  Can you imagine the media and fans rioting on who should start the SB?

That picture is infamous & will stand the test of time. They should all have Purple Favre jerseys on.

P.S. during the NFC CG game vs. the Giants, I mentioned to my friends about replacing "god". They all said I'm insane....but I simply said...LOOK at him. He doesn't want to be out there!

Boris, the real story is that Favre was pissed at God about the weather.  Favre had asked for a warmer game, but God wouldn't listen and decided to go in a different direction.  So of course his heart wasn't in it.  He talked to Greta afterwards to state his case.  Rumor also has it that he contacted Satan to give him tips on defeating God.  But he's still expecting a big crowd to greet him at the Pearly Gates and will be shocked and humbled by the turnout.  Meanwhile, many of the angels will be chanting "FF".

       


My good friend said the exact same thing to me as we left Lambeau that night. I laughed.

Jesus never asked for a private locker room. I'm just sayin'.  

Disagree. The aforementioned halftime comment from the '07 NFCC game and then there was the Family weekend fiasco in '08. When FF was told the Packers had moved on it wasn't Thompson who made that call, it was McCarthy. 

"It is more about him than it is about the team. Cannot play with him, cannot win with him, cannot coach with him. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win."

  ** quote edited for affect **

FF himself mentioned that he hadn't trained as hard or did as much film study as he did in '07. That's McCarthy's influence and demand from his players.

I've always said this too. Let TOG stay in the locker room and get good and warmed up. If they would have needed him to come to the rescue in the 4th quarter so be it.  If not TOG starts the Super Bowl, gets another ring and retires for good and July/August of 2008 never happen. 

I still think that MM "tolerated" more from Favre than other players. The quote "if he wasn't Brett Favre......." tells us that. His disengagement from teammates, unwillingness to mentor younger players, etc. all went against what MM believes. He was tougher with Favre than anyone since Holgy, but still had to tolerate more than he had to with other players. 

Maybe, if he had to tolerate more, it was because FF was not following the rules like others. 

Probably not actually "breaking rules" but a general "not totally buying in", which I know for myself, after being a coach for 30 years, you can feel & it can really eat at you. 

The Favre Rules were like the Jordan Rules - minus all the hardware.

If you had just listened to Mike.

When Ted welcomed Brett and Deanna back to Lambeau I wonder if he considered wearing the Viking "Thanks Ted" jersey. I'd like to think it at least crossed his mind. 

Thankfully, I think Ted is free from the emotions of humans.

It's rumored that Ted Thompson broke into unbridled joy and slammed a closed hand onto a table top when the draft day announcement making Eddie Lacy a Green Bay Packer was made. 

Point is there may very well be an ember of emotion in there somewhere. 

I think Favre had some better years than you're giving him credit for.  I thought in 1994 he turned the corner and became a great player even before the MVP years.  You're not wrong in terms of him being inconsistent as he didn't begin that year strong, but I felt like the 2nd half of that season he emerged as a great player after nearly being benched for Brunell around mid-season. 

Favre had what I would say were 5 average to poor seasons with the Pack in '93, '99, '00, '05, and '06.  I look at non MVP seasons like '94, '01, '03, '04, and '07 as high levels of play even though they weren't MVP caliber.  In '92 he was very good when you consider just how bad the Pack really was in '90, '91, and even the first part of the '92 season before he finished the game vs. the Bengals after Majkowski was hurt.  

Even in '93 where I am considering that one of Favre's "poor" seasons, he made a play in a playoff game that guys like Andy Dalton can only dream of making in hitting Sterling Sharpe on a very very tough pass to the other side of the field.

Listen, I get it, '95-'97 is primarily what separated Favre and is what got him into the Hall Of Fame, but I think you're selling him short in a number of seasons where he really was very good.

Here's Dalton's 4 years

33/20 88.8

27/16 87.4

19/17 83.5

20/13 80.4

Those 4 years TD% of 4.7% and INT% of 3.1%

Here's Favre in his what I consider non superb years

31/23 87.8  (Literally almost a carbon copy)

22/23 74.7 (Worse than anything Dalton's put up)

20/16 78.0 (Very similar to Dalton)

32/15 94.1 (Slightly better than Dalton's best)

27/16 85.6 (Again, almost a carbon copy of one of Dalton's years)

32/21 90.4 (Virtually the same as that first year I list of Dalton)

30/17 92.4 (Very similar again)

20/29 70.9 (Significantly worse than anything Dalton's put up)

18/18 72.7 (Slightly worse than anything Dalton's put up)

28/15 95.7 (Better than anything Dalton's put up)

TD% of 4.9%, INT% of 3.4%

Of the 10 years I considered 1998-2007, 2 years Favre was slightly better than anything Dalton has done.  3 years Favre was clearly worse than anything Dalton has done.  And 5 years they were basically the same.  TD% and INT% were basically dead even - Favre +0.2% on TDs, Dalton +0.3% on INTs 

I know on the face of it, it might sound bizarre, but realistically and objectively it's pretty accurate.  I guess it reinforces how perceptions influence us.  People perceive Dalton to be garbage, when if you look at his actual production, it's pretty solid.  People perceive Favre to be amazing, and he produced well in some years, average in some, and downright bad in some others. 

Comparing Favre to Dalton isn't meant as a criticism per se, it's not "OMG Dalton sucks and Favre is basically Dalton."  It's meant more as "Dalton wasn't as bad as you probably think, and in many years, Favre was pretty damn similar in terms of production."

For a full picture, and given changes in the league over time, I think we have to see how these raw numbers compared to the rest of the league.  I expected this to be the point where my argument fell short and that I'd end up backtracking and admitting I was over exaggerating my point.  When I was being honest with myself knowing someone would point this out if I didn't, I expected that Favre's mid 80 to low 90 years would still be in top 10.  Likewise, I expected that Dalton's 80's would be closer to 20-25 most of those years. 

In Dalton's 4 years, he's averaged 18.25 in QB Rating in the league.  1998-2007 Favre averaged 14.5 in QB Rating.  So, compared to the rest of the league, Favre's 98-07 years are slightly better than Dalton, but not significantly so.

I stand by my contention, 95-97, and 09 aside, he was basically Andy Dalton.

Brett made throws Dalton is never making. Ever. Brett made throws that just about any QB in history is capable of. It's natural to latch onto small doses of greatness and weave  a fictitious fabric of accomplishment. But if you objectively step back and look at the overall body of work between that tapestry of talent in the case of Brett Favre you see an awful lot of particle board, wood glue and failure. 

In the end you're numbers are what you are. Throw a 27 yard laser between 3 DBs for 6 or audible to a FB swing pass from the 4. History recognizes it as a TD pass. If you're consistently  great the numbers will make you're case. Make rediculous throws and fans have a tendency to layer in bonus points. 

Brett could have been much better than his numbers showed. He wasnt. That's on him. 

Basically, Favre showed a lot of variability within games, between games, and between seasons.  High highs and low lows.  Sure, average them and you get an average QB, but it doesn't take into account his full range of performance. 

Is it ****ity ****ing mother****in' football yet?

Performance and ability are Brett Favres personal disconnect. At some point ability gave performance a pink slip. He became a servant to his media driven legend. 

He needs a walk of shame with TT and MM3 ringing the bell.

Though nobody wants to see his weenis and crocks again.

Rodgers hasn't won a road game vs a team with a winning record since 2012.

(He has multiple road wins vs. 8-8 teams)

He almost single handedly beat the four best teams in the NFL away from Lambeau in 2010.

Lot of blank paper waiting for the rest of this story... 

You know the whole point of this thread was obviously Rodgers vs. Favre.  I would agree that even beyond just pure stats, I think Rodgers is better and that will continue to bear out.  

That said, I think stats are going to be a little bit different for the older guys compared to guys that have begun their careers in the past 7 or 8 years.  

There's a reason that ESPN cancelled their "Jacked Up" segment circa 2007-2008.  Rules were changing, emphasis was on taking away defenses ability to be ultra-aggressive.  The less significant rule was taking away the horse collar tackles.  The more significant rules crippling a defense were 3 key things:

a) taking away secondaries' abilities to lay the hurt on receivers at any time.  As Peter King put it in an article a few years ago that went something like this, "Receivers used to fear going over the middle as they might be getting blasted by a safety.  Now, it is the opposite, defensive guys fear hitting a guy over the middle as they are afraid of the Monday morning fines that come with it."  It has all but eliminated the aggressive head hunting safety of the past ala Chuck Cecil, Steve Atwater, Roy Williams, etc.  

b) Roughing the passer is called much more frequently.  It's always been part of the game, but after Tom Brady's injury in 2008, it's been called far more often and has made DEs and LBs in general a bit more hesitant before laying the hit on a QB.  There are many bogus calls made that benefit an offense and keep drives going as well when legit. sacks were actually made.

c) Bumping/Holding receivers.  I don't think this is significantly different than say 20 years ago, but it is slightly more emphasized than in the past.  

The rules have changed enough in the past 7 or 8 years that even mediocre QBs can put up some pretty good stats.  I just think you need to consider eras when you start comparing a guys like Andy Dalton, etc. to the guys from 20 years ago.  It isn't a completely different game, but there are enough subtle changes, that statistically, it is easier for any QB to complete a pass now in 2015 than it was in 1995.  That's  my opinion, at least.