he says until Rodgers beats Favre, Favre is the better QB......

I really cant believe how NFLN and ESPN just worship him at every chance, ya can't watch any Packer-related videos without some retard yelling "BRETT FARV!!"

we better put Rodgers at OLB next year and end this debate.

---

I can't argue with that assessment, football being an individual one-on-one contest...

---

Dukes played with Favre and definitely admires the way he plays the game. No question about it, so there is a bias there. Also, he favors veterans over young guys. That's just a philosophy he has. He ranks Donovan McNabb ahead of Aaron Rodgers and Phillip Rivers.

With that said, he has a point. Favre was amazing last year. No question about it. I'm not so sure that I wouldn't take Brett Favre if I had to win one regular season game tomorrow.

What I don't like is how people call it ridiculous to even make the comparisons. Favre is going to be 41 and there is no shame in going with a younger more mobile QB, who has thrown for over 4,000 yards in each of his two seasons as a starter. I would argue that the fact Favre is in the conversation at his age says more about his greatness than it does about what level Aaron Rodgers is on. Unfortunately, not to many people see it that way.

---

Even if it was a playoff game? lol

---

This may be the most perfect, and well thought out post I have seen here in a while on this subject Well done... You gave me a fresh perspective.

Thank You for that.

---

Rodgers played very well in both of those games against the Vikings last year, but Favre played even better, and the Vikings won both games. So the guy's not totally off-base.

The real difference in those games was the pass rush, though. Neither game had the feel of a QB duel because Rodgers had a lot less time to throw the ball than Favre did.

---

I enjoyed the segment, but Dukes is very biased, plus the rationale is overly simplistic.

Aaron Rodgers didn't have the level of a backfield threat and appurtenant defensive "scheme" that opponents would have to employ that Brett enjoyed. Don't even get me started on the offensive line...

The question was, "Right now."

Brett is throwing to high school kids, plus he's 14 lbs over-weight. Aaron Rodgers is (so far, two years running) more consistent than Brett--maybe we are the only ones that really know this, but we darn sure do...

As great as Brett was last year, and as great a career as he has had, we have completely lucked out and actually got someone better to replace him.

Better.

Actually, the best.

Ever.

So far.

It's in the record books now, his first two years as a starter... No other QB has ever done what he did in those first two years...

Ever.

I'm not calling Brett's performance an aberration last year, but I'm not "not" calling it one, either. Aaron LOOKS like he is SO consistent, "consistently".

I think all fellow Packer/Favre/Rodgers fans understand that semi-whacky statement. As many know, I go with my, "How many cigs do I smoke" analysis when comparing the two...

Favre is a two-packer, Rodgers I can get by on one, so therefore, he's twice as consistent.

:tongue3:

(btw-The '96 Packers segment on NFLN was awesome last night)

I'm not sure why, but when I watched him occasionally via videos at NFL.com, Dukes struck me as one of the better talking heads out there. Probably my OL bias (I also like Ross Tucker).

Not to mention the alternatives against which he is compared are typically so very, very bad, that anything remotely articulate seems good by comparison.

As to the substantive point. I would rather have Rodgers right now than Favre. In fact I can't think of a quarterback I'd rather have than Rodgers, save perhaps Bart Starr c. 1965. Not Favre. Not Brady. Not Brees. Not M*nning.

I think this is part of the reason I continue to be so damn unreasonable about the OL. I think about what Rodgers would do with a topflight line, instead of one I considered servicable at best at the end of last year, and it almost makes me drool. And I worry that, because of that line, there's too high a likelihood of that one low hit or cheap shot (can you say "New Orleans"?) away from the quarterback equivalent of Eddie Lee Ivery or Gale Sayers.

We Packer fans are so spoiled from the F*vre years of never missing a game. We forget that the early years of the "streak" were enabled in part by a Vicodin addiction. That the years of Favre's career did not all take place behind a dominant line, and that without his freakish durability, we would have had to make do without him more than once.

I think Rodgers has something that could make him the greatest quarterback ever. But not if he's on the sideline in street clothes.

---

I think you have to compare the supporting casts, and also take into effect that Favre played at least 9 games in a dome last year. Rodgers proved he was money in the Pittsburgh game and AZ playoff game. No one can question his "clutch" anymore.

I ask myself... who is less likely to throw a game-ending interception? No brainer there.

---

jamie dukes is an asstard. 'nuff said.

---