Favre Downs Rodgers Achievements

[bucky]

I think Starr was further removed from his playing days, whereas Favre just retired and still carries a grudge toward the Packers organization (justly or unjustly).

I agree. And it shows in Favre's interview. I believe what you said here is exactly why he is so guarded and injects his own legacy into his comments.

As far as Starr being further removed from his playing days, Starr was always gracious, respectful, humble, classy and complimentary in his interviews both during his playing days and immediately following retirement, through current day. So I don't think your comment about one being more removed than the other applies. It's more of a character issue for me. Favre, it's a little understandable, I may have that pettiness if I were an ex NFL QB. We all have flaws. There are just some exceptional people, and Starr is one of them.

 

[FirstTimer]

Weak attempt to blow Favre's comments out of proportion. When the Packers were 8-6 going into week 15 coming off of back to back losses to the Lions and the Patriots, NOBODY thought they were the favorites going into the playoffs. But when they hit their stride, they hit their stride and have been hard to stop ever since.

Let's not forget that Rodgers inherited a team that went to the NFC championship game and went 6-10 the first year and got taken to the woodshed by Favre and the Vikings twice the following year. There's no denying Rodgers talent but he did have the benefit of not getting thrown to the wolves like most young QB's these days and he is surrounded by more talent than Favre ever had on offense.

Come on now.

The biggest issue that that 6-10 team was the defense. The offense saw virtually no drop off in production from the year before when they had Favre. The defense fell off a damn cliff. The offense both seasons was a Top 5 unit. The defense went from a Top 5-10 Unit to ranking somewhere in the 20's. To lay the 6-10 season at the feet of Rodgers is a ridiculously bad evaluation.

Also, the following season The Packer lost one game by one score and the other game they were within one score twice in the 4th quarter. Yeah Favre played really well but Rodgers played pretty damn well both games as well.

 

[MrBill]

Come on now.

The biggest issue that that 6-10 team was the defense. The offense saw virtually no drop off in production from the year before when they had Favre. The defense fell off a damn cliff. The offense both seasons was a Top 5 unit. The defense went from a Top 5-10 Unit to ranking somewhere in the 20's. To lay the 6-10 season at the feet of Rodgers is a ridiculously bad evaluation.

The defense did drop from 11th to 20th from '07 to '08 but the offense also dropped from 2nd to 8th so it's misleading to say the offense was doing as good or better with Rodgers behind center right out of the gate. In '09, Rodgers helped move the Packers offense back up to 6th in the league and the defense moved up to 2nd so it's arguable that the offense was holding the defense back that season when Rodgers threw away the playoff game in Arizona. Last year during the regular season, the Packers offense actually dropped to 9th in the league and the defense was 5th. Had the Packers stumbled against the Giants and Bears and finished at 8-8 it's quite possible that McCarthy and possibly Thompson would have been fired at the end of last season. Instead they got hot and went on a roll and haven't lost since last December.

Also, the following season The Packer lost one game by one score and the other game they were within one score twice in the 4th quarter. Yeah Favre played really well but Rodgers played pretty damn well both games as well.

Rodgers did play damn well but Favre played better in both of those games and the whole season :yep:

I'm damn glad that Rodgers is in Green Bay but looking at the team over the past 20 years, I still see Rodgers having more support on both sides of the ball than Favre ever did. I don't see anything convincing me otherwise.

 

[FirstTimer]

The defense did drop from 11th to 20th from '07 to '08 but the offense also dropped from 2nd to 8th so it's misleading to say the offense was doing as good or better with Rodgers behind center right out of the gate.

Nice cherry picking of stats. I like how you ignore that the team only went from 4th in points to 5th in offense. And from 6th in the NFL in points in 2007 to 22nd the next year.

What's more important to you in a football game? Points or yards?

In '09, Rodgers helped move the Packers offense back up to 6th in the league and the defense moved up to 2nd so it's arguable that the offense was holding the defense back that season when Rodgers threw away the playoff game in Arizona.

LOL at this. I don't think I've ever heard of a teams QB "throwing the game away" when they put up 45 points on the road in the playoffs.

The offense was not holding the defense back. The defense had a nice bounce back season.

Rodgers did play damn well but Favre played better in both of those games and the whole season :yep:

Ok? I never said any different. Your characterization of Favre taking Rodgers to the woodshed was off, that's all.

I'm damn glad that Rodgers is in Green Bay but looking at the team over the past 20 years, I still see Rodgers having more support on both sides of the ball than Favre ever did. I don't see anything convincing me otherwise.

I really don't care about what Favre said or what you are wanting or are incapable of being convinced of. Frankly, Rodgers has had better offensive weapons IMO, however to this point Favre had the better defenses relative to the success of the team during his time in Green Bay overall. There weren't very many seasons under Favre where the defense was marginal or bad where Favre lifted the team up and carried them. The one real exception to that is 2004. Rodgers sample size as a QB isn't really large enough to draw any conclusions about what he is capable of doing when the defense is really bad. Can he elevate a team with a subpar defense to the playoffs etc?

That's tough for a lot of QB's to do and many of the greats had trouble doing it. Hell, IMO Favre only really ever did it once.

But I digress. My point wasn't so much that I'm taking sides here, just pointing out that laying 2007 at Rodgers feet or saying Favre "took him to the woodshed" in their 2009 matchups wasn't really accurate.

 

[Senser81]

As far as Starr being further removed from his playing days, Starr was always gracious, respectful, humble, classy and complimentary in his interviews both during his playing days and immediately following retirement, through current day. So I don't think your comment about one being more removed than the other applies. It's more of a character issue for me. Favre, it's a little understandable, I may have that pettiness if I were an ex NFL QB. We all have flaws. There are just some exceptional people, and Starr is one of them.

I don't know if it was Starr or the organization, but for many years after Starr was fired as the Packers head coach in 1983, the Packers had nothing to do with Starr.

 

[Senser81]

I'm damn glad that Rodgers is in Green Bay but looking at the team over the past 20 years, I still see Rodgers having more support on both sides of the ball than Favre ever did. I don't see anything convincing me otherwise.

I was thinking about this last night. The Packers O-line is still suspect. I think its better this year with Bulaga, but now Bulaga and Clifton are out. Rodgers has not had a good O-line and he's still succeeded.

The RBs are a joke. Ryan Grant is decent, but he is not explosive. Starks is a late round pick from Buffalo who has potential but has no hands or brains. Last year, they had Brandon Jackson...a nice fill-in guy but nothing special.

Rodgers didn't have Finley last year and won the Super Bowl. He has Finley this year, and I think Finley is the closest thing to "elite athlete" that the Packers have on offense. Jennings is really good, but he's from WMU. Jordy Nelson is a mid-round pick from KSU. Driver went to Alcorn. James Jones came from God knows where.

Point being that Rodgers doesn't have great size/speed athletes around him nor does he have high draft pick guys from big name schools. Rodgers has taken a lot of no-name guys and made them into stars.

 

[FirstTimer]

I was thinking about this last night. The Packers O-line is still suspect. I think its better this year with Bulaga, but now Bulaga and Clifton are out. Rodgers has not had a good O-line and he's still succeeded.

The RBs are a joke. Ryan Grant is decent, but he is not explosive. Starks is a late round pick from Buffalo who has potential but has no hands or brains. Last year, they had Brandon Jackson...a nice fill-in guy but nothing special.

Rodgers didn't have Finley last year and won the Super Bowl. He has Finley this year, and I think Finley is the closest thing to "elite athlete" that the Packers have on offense. Jennings is really good, but he's from WMU. Jordy Nelson is a mid-round pick from KSU. Driver went to Alcorn. James Jones came from God knows where.

Point being that Rodgers doesn't have great size/speed athletes around him nor does he have high draft pick guys from big name schools. Rodgers has taken a lot of no-name guys and made them into stars.

Fair point.

Honestly Farve and Rodgers cast in some ways is similar. I don't think Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Dorsey Levens, Edgar Bennett etc were that highly thought of either. Player for player I'd rather have Rodgers guys but when looking at "pedigree" of the player neither has many that jump out at you outside of Sterling Sharpe and Finley...and each QB won plenty without either of them.

 

[MrBill]

Nice cherry picking of stats. I like how you ignore that the team only went from 4th in points to 5th in offense. And from 6th in the NFL in points in 2007 to 22nd the next year.

What's more important to you in a football game? Points or yards?

I don't make the rules, the league ranks offenses and defense by yardage gained or given up. You give up less yards, you typically give up fewer points. You gain more yards, you typically score more points. Of course there are statistical anomalies where the inverse is true.

LOL at this. I don't think I've ever heard of a teams QB "throwing the game away" when they pout up 45 points on the road in the playoffs.

The offense was not holding the defense back. The defense had a nice bounce back season.

Rodgers started and finished the game with turnovers that directly led to the Packers loss. He played very well but also put his defense in a hole.

Ok? I never said any different. Your characterization of Favre taking Rodgers to the woodshed was off, that's all.

It's not like Rodgers stunk up the field by any means but he was dominated statistically in both games.

Week 4: Rodgers 26/37 384 2 1 110.6 Favre 24/31 271 3 0 135.2
Week 8: Rodgers 26/41 287 3 0 108.4 Favre 17/28 244 4 0 128.5

I really don't care about what Favre said or what you are wanting or are incapable of being convinced of. Frankly, Rodgers has had better offensive weapons IMO, however to this point Favre had the better defenses relative to the success of the team during his time in Green Bay overall. There weren't very many seasons under Favre where the defense was marginal or bad where Favre lifted the team up and carried them. The one real exception to that is 2004. Rodgers sample size as a QB isn't really large enough to draw any conclusions about what he is capable of doing when the defense is really bad. Can he elevate a team with a subpar defense to the playoffs etc?

That's tough for a lot of QB's to do and many of the greats had trouble doing it. Hell, IMO Favre only really ever did it once.

Favre definitely benefited from good defense during his MVP runs from '94-'96. The defenses were 11th, 1st and 7th. The year with the 1st ranked defense they won the Super Bowl but they went back to the Super Bowl the following year with the 7th ranked squad.

The rest of his time there the defenses were largely mediocre with only three seasons where they were a top 10 squad verses 7 top 10 rankings for the offense in that same timeframe. The defensive unit ranks for the Packers from '97-'06 ranked as follows; 7th, 4th, 19th, 15th, 12th, 17th, 25th, 7th & 12th. The offense for the same period; 4th, 5th, 9th, 15th, 6th, 12th, 4th, 3rd, 18th & 9th.

But I digress. My point wasn't so much that I'm taking sides here, just pointing out that laying 2007 at Rodgers feet or saying Favre "took him to the woodshed" in their 2009 matchups wasn't really accurate.

I'm not laying '08 at Rodgers feet but there was a significant decline in offensive production from '07-'08 where the offense dropped from 2nd to 8th and the only difference was the starting QB.

 

[Deviant]

Rodgers started and finished the game with turnovers that directly led to the Packers loss. He played very well but also put his defense in a hole.

He put the defense in a hole? How about the hole the defense put him in? Rodgers wasn't the only one with miscues. Jennings also turned the ball over in the first. 17-0 in the 1st quarter.

Aaron Rodgers is the reason the Packers had a chance in that entire game. The defense fucking blew during the game. Practically zero defensive stops. Packers' offense needed an onside kick to get back in the game and then a missed field goal by Rackers (from 34 yards, so Green Bay's D REALLY got lucky) to send it into OT. The Cardinals were going up and down the field at will against Green Bay's defense. None of this shit about the Rodgers putting the defense in a hole. The defense put the Packers in a hole. How can you even say that when the defense allowed 45 POINTS?!

I'm not laying '08 at Rodgers feet but there was a significant decline in offensive production from '07-'08 where the offense dropped from 2nd to 8th and the only difference was the starting QB.

I've posted this before in another thread a long time ago, but once again, this guy nails it right on the head with the '07 and '08 seasons. He's does the right thing and actually analyzes the games:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpC3IvQdrLY"]Rodgers vs Favre: A Case For Rodgers - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FirstTimer]

I don't make the rules, the league ranks offenses and defense by yardage gained or given up. You give up less yards, you typically give up fewer points. You gain more yards, you typically score more points. Of course there are statistical anomalies where the inverse is true.

Ok? And you cherry picked the stats that suited your arguments. The league ranking teams by ayrdage is dumb IMO anyways.

There are plenty of rules the league has that you disagree.

Keep reaching.

He played very well

Ok. So how does this= Favre taking Rodgers to the woodshed?

It's not like Rodgers stunk up the field by any means but he was dominated statistically in both games.

Week 4: Rodgers 26/37 384 2 1 110.6 Favre 24/31 271 3 0 135.2
Week 8: Rodgers 26/41 287 3 0 108.4 Favre 17/28 244 4 0 128.5

Again...how does this show Favre took Rodgers to the woodshed? Rodgers lit up the Vikings defense. Favre did the same to the Packers. Only a moron would insinuate that the above stats show Favre taking Rodgers to the "woodshed".

Favre definitely benefited from good defense during his MVP runs from '94-'96. The defenses were 11th, 1st and 7th. The year with the 1st ranked defense they won the Super Bowl but they went back to the Super Bowl the following year with the 7th ranked squad.

Ok?

The rest of his time there the defenses were largely mediocre with only three seasons where they were a top 10 squad verses 7 top 10 rankings for the offense in that same timeframe. The defensive unit ranks for the Packers from '97-'06 ranked as follows; 7th, 4th, 19th, 15th, 12th, 17th, 25th, 7th & 12th. The offense for the same period; 4th, 5th, 9th, 15th, 6th, 12th, 4th, 3rd, 18th & 9th.

Ok? Nothing you said disproves anything I said. With the exception of 2003 and 2004(yardage wise) and 2004(points wise) Favre never took a team with a defense that was in the bottom half of the league to the playoffs.

So my point still stands.

I'm not laying '08 at Rodgers feet but there was a significant decline in offensive production from '07-'08 where the offense dropped from 2nd to 8th and the only difference was the starting QB.

LOL. The difference was a whopping 1 point per game and 19.5 yards per game.

Significant decline my ass.

 

[MrBill]

Ok? Nothing you said disproves anything I said. With the exception of 2003 and 2004(yardage wise) and 2004(points wise) Favre never took a team with a defense that was in the bottom half of the league to the playoffs.

So my point still stands.

So now the standard is a defense ranked in the bottom half of the league? It's not like the '01 and '02 Packers defenses struck fear into opponents. They were more along the lines of average than good (12th ranked both years). It's more like 4 or 5 years that Favre took an average or below average defensive squad to the playoffs.

LOL. The difference was a whopping 1 point per game and 19.5 yards per game.

Then the Packers didn't keep up with the increase in production across the rest of the league because they still went from 2nd to 8th. The most important difference was the -7 games from the previous year.

We can all agree that Rodgers is turning out to be an incredible QB in his own right. It's just crazy at the lengths people go to in order to try and trash Favre or make it seems like the Packers suffered under his time at QB.

 

[FirstTimer]

So now the standard is a defense ranked in the bottom half of the league? It's not like the '01 and '02 Packers defenses struck fear into opponents. They were more along the lines of average than good (12th ranked both years). It's more like 4 or 5 years that Favre took an average or below average defensive squad to the playoffs.

No. That's what I've been saying from the start.

There weren't very many seasons under Favre where the defense was marginal or bad where Favre lifted the team up and carried them. .

Then the Packers didn't keep up with the increase in production across the rest of the league because they still went from 2nd to 8th. The most important difference was the -7 games from the previous year.

LOL at your trying to defend 1 less point per game as a significant decline.

We can all agree that Rodgers is turning out to be an incredible QB in his own right. It's just crazy at the lengths people go to in order to try and trash Favre or make it seems like the Packers suffered under his time at QB.

bama:

Never even attempted to do that..or was doing that...

 

[bucky]

In '09, Rodgers helped move the Packers offense back up to 6th in the league and the defense moved up to 2nd so it's arguable that the offense was holding the defense back that season

That defense lost two CB's and was playing street free agents in the playoff game against AZ.

when Rodgers threw away the playoff game in Arizona.

You're either trolling or your too stubborn about being a Favre fan to admit the truth and be objective. Rodgers threw the playoff game away? Didn't Rodgers score a shit load of points to have the defense give up a shit load of points in that playoff game? Wasn't it one of the highest scoring playoff games in the history of the NFL? Didn't Rogers have the ball knocked out of his hands by a heavy pass rush, but since the ball never hit the ground it ended up a int instead of a fumble? Isn't that a far cry from Favre throwing the ball to the other team at the end of playoff games?

Last year during the regular season, the Packers offense actually dropped to 9th in the league and the defense was 5th.

Didn't Rodgers have close to an MVP type season at QB last year? Didn't GB not have a running game most of the season and the offense fell squarely on Rodgers?

Had the Packers stumbled against the Giants and Bears and finished at 8-8 it's quite possible that McCarthy and possibly Thompson would have been fired at the end of last season.

One, where in the world do you get this? And, had the Steelers lost every single regular season game and finished 0-16, it's quite possible that they would not have been in the Super Bowl? What the fuck does non existent what if's have to do with this? Didn't Rodgers and GB beat the Giants and Bears?

Instead they got hot and went on a roll and haven't lost since last December.

Really, so they got lucky and got hot, and that's the reason they won games, and Rodgers was just a passenger? Damn that Rodgers sure is lucky.

Rodgers did play damn well but Favre played better in both of those games and the whole season :yep:

Favre played better in what games? The NFCC game he was shitty against the Giants and had Eli Manning outplay him? The NFCC game against the Giants when he threw the OT int that ended GB's chance to go to the SB? The playoff game in Philly when he threw up that lame duck of a pass in OT that ended GB's chance of advancing in the playoffs? The Rams playoff game that he threw 6 ints? and on and on and on and on.

I'm damn glad that Rodgers is in Green Bay but looking at the team over the past 20 years, I still see Rodgers having more support on both sides of the ball than Favre ever did. I don't see anything convincing me otherwise.

Favre had some very good support in his 16 years in GB.

Bill, it's fine if you want to talk about the great things that Brett's done, but just Shut The Fuck Up until you can be objective about things.

 

[Liquidrob]

I think what Bucky is trying to say is if Favre sent a picture of his penis to a random reporter that Mr Bill would be some where in the pic

 

[MrBill]

I think what Mr Bill is trying to say is if Bart Starr sent a picture of his penis to a random reporter that Bucky would be some where in the pic

:yep:

 

[bucky]

I don't know if it was Starr or the organization, but for many years after Starr was fired as the Packers head coach in 1983, the Packers had nothing to do with Starr.

It was the organization. There were some on the executive board that were really upset with Starr while Starr was coaching. The executive board wanted him fired and wasn't the kindest to him at the end. And he should have been fired, in fact he never should have been hired. He didn't want to be head coach, but at the time, the board begged him to. And he was not ready. He was a QB coach in 72, just one year. He just wasn't ready. He was actually more ready to coach when they fired him. And yet Starr has never said one bad word about the GB organization. That says a lot about his character.

 

[bucky]

I'm not laying '08 at Rodgers feet but there was a significant decline in offensive production from '07-'08 where the offense dropped from 2nd to 8th and the only difference was the starting QB.

I thought they had some significant O-Line changes, and Changes on D.