And RP, I agree.

It has been bugging me for a while now, and I am far from a blind homer.

How does a guy consistently get better to the point where you cannot even imagine what his top level is? "Elite" quarterbacks peak where Aaron Rodgers started at (28-13, 4000+)

Just considering how good he can be is scary, in a good way. Barring injury, he WILL be one of the best, if not the best of all time.

I have never felt more expectation from a ball player than watching Aaron Rodgers, especially on 3rd down/redzone situations. It's kind of annoying as a fan (in a good way, strangely) - feeling that any down he could throw a TD or make something fantastic happen.

With Brett, you also knew an INT was around the corner.

Not with Chico.

---

I remember watching games with my step dad and hed be all excited to see the packers moving down the field or having a big play then next thing you knew was brent would throw one of his wild balls and it would get picked off and my step dad would be saying "F$%^! F$%!"

that was brent - a Great QB but like you said vince ... an int was just around the corner.

+1 RP

I like the cojones. He certainly has all the tools to become one of the all-time greats. He's also got an offense around him that can be scary good. I don't think we are that far off from seeing just how good he will be.

From my recollection of Favre's early career (overlooking the fact I was not quite 4 when he won the starting job against the Bengals), it seems to me we really knew what we had in Favre by the '95 season. At that point there would have been some questions (beat Dallas or win the Super Bowl, vicodin thing if that had come out yet). But I don't think many would have thought it absurd to predict Favre heading to the Hall of Fame.

I know at this point Rodgers only has started two years and has not won a playoff game or an MVP yet like Favre did through his fourth season in '95. But we saw what was arguably the greatest second half performance from a qb in playoff history and he was in the category of honorable mention last year for MVP in just his 2nd year starting. Good things are coming this year and I think we'll have more people echoing RP's ballsy prediction by the end of this season.

---

Also the same people that feel this way about Favre, do you also feel that the Colts would have more SBs if it wasn't for Manning? No, probably not, because Manning elevated the Colts to that level, just as Favre did IMO. I don't think those Packers teams were particularly great. He never had HOF WRs or HOF RBs and the D's were decent but not great.

It evens out IMO. May be the Packers win a few more SBs if Favre isn't Favre but may be Favre wins a few more SBs if the Packers had better Ds or better RBs/WRs.

Overall, I think he elevated the Packers to contenders and gave us 17 years of only ONE losing season. And we won a SB. What else do people want.

---

I don't get how people put Manning above Favre. Seriously, I don't. Manning blows big games just as much as Favre does. Manning's got a 9-9 record in the Playoffs. Favre 11-9. Manning throws bad INTs in big games just like Favre does.

On the plus side, both consistently produce. Now if you look at history though, Favre had one Hall of Fame caliber WR in Sterling Sharpe up until the end of '94. Manning had arguably the best possession WR to ever play the game (Jerry Rice was more dynamic and a better WR, but a straight up possession WR, I'd take Harrison).

Manning also had better OLs his entire career. Favre took some hits that would have ENDED Manning's career. Look at the sack totals. Manning generally leaves a game with his uniform still clean (other than sweat).

If you look at Favre's 2 SB games vs Mannings 2 SB games, Favre has Manning beat.

Favre also is tough to sack. He's been one of the harder QBs I've ever seen at being brought down, despite the fact that neither of them are that quick. I think if my Grandma raced them in the 100-yard dash, it would be my Grandma, then Favre, then Manning.

By the way, why are we talking about Favre in a Rodgers thread again? I hope I didn't cause this.

I sincerely hope Rodgers has more SB wins than both of them combined so this thread can die once and for all.

---

I think people wanted Favre to be held more accountable at crucial times in particularly crucial game. Before the nasty divorce from Green Bay -- almost to a person -- the feelings towards Favre came from a place of adoration. That said, starting with the playoffs in '98 up until the near-miracle run in '07, Favre had a way of playing downright awful in the playoffs. For many of those years Favre's surrounding offensive cast was average to above-average. Favre did indeed elevate Green Bay's position. However, the NFC Central/North was largely uncompetitive throughout those years (exceptions exist, I know).

Favre's legendary status was firmly in place by the earlier part of the previous decade. If Green Bay was in a advantageous position going into the postseason, Favre's gritty performances were the cause. BUT that didn't buy him a pass to be foolish with the ball in the playoffs. And there are plenty of examples of Favre trying to force things, trying to seemingly win games on his own. It was great that he played a huge role in getting the team to that point. It wasn't great that there didn't seem to be much accountability at the crucial point. How many times have you heard him say, "I was just trying to make a play." We get it Brett. But maybe work the check-down. Hell, throw it away once in a while.

He's a quarterback. He gets too much credit; at times he gets too much blame. He shoudl be considered one of the best guys to take you there, but the only time he finished the deed he had arguably the NFL's best defense AND special teams.

I personally think that the surrounding talent in Minnie is just about as good as he's ever had. That's why it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Vikes make a run this year. Ahman Green was very good at his best, but he's no AP.

---

You're right, the defense screwed up massively on that one play. It's not like they hadn't done their level best to keep the Packers in the game up to that point. Remember, they only sacked McNabb 8 times in that game, limiting him to 248 passing yards. Surely they could have done better.

And surely the ground attack was a massive disappointment in that game too, grinding out a mere 210 yards at a lowly 5.7 YPA.

Without a doubt, it was Favre's scintillating 53.6% completion percentage, 180 passing yards, and 2 TDs that kept them in that game.

As for the Atlanta game, Atlanta churned out a grand total of 248 yards of offense, of which 117 yards was passing by Vick and another 64 were Vick's rushing yards. They held Warrick Dunn to 64 yards. That does not sound like a defensive collapse to me. In fact, it looks like a solid defensive performance to me.

By contrast, Favre was a stellar 20 of 42 (47.6%,) for 247 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INT . . . a whopping 54.4 rating. Ahman Green and Tony Fisher contributed another 57 yards.

I don't see how this defeat can be laid at the feet of the defense either.

I also recently watched the Packers/Rams playoff game, in which Favre threw 6 interceptions. What struck me was how the Packers had the Rams on their heels almost the entire game. Though Favre apologists like to say the Packers never had a chance in that game, it simply isn't true. Were it not for the insane number of turnovers (it could have easily been 9 turnovers were it not for a couple of really bad calls by the officials), the Packers probably would have destroyed the Rams in that game. Kurt Warner looked simply awful more often than not during the game, and the Packers defense had him on the ground repeatedly. It was not the defense that lost that game either.

As for the Super Bowl XXXII, I never got to watch that game (parents wouldn't let me watch football). However, while it's true that Terrell Davis gashed the Packers for over 150 yards, you forget that the Packers' defense held John Elway to 12 of 22 for 123 yards with no TDs and 1 INT (51.9 rating). So while Favre certainly performed well in that game, it's not like the game represented a monumental defensive collapse either.

---

NSD, I cannot seriously debate this with you. You clearly have hate on for Favre. Your whole post is not objective at all.

You didn't even watch Super Bowl XXXII. Do you realize the Packers were 11 point favorites. 11 Points. And that D gave up 31 points. TD broke the record for most TDs by a RB I am pretty sure. And in a game where he suffered a massive migrane where he couldn't even see straight.

Did you honestly watch the Falcons game or did you just look at the Box Score like Super Bowl XXXII?

Opening drive, 75 yard touchdown drive led by VICK. Then

4-3-GB 12 (6:43) J.Bidwell punt is BLOCKED by M.Simoneau, Center-R.Davis, RECOVERED by ATL-A.Ulmer at GB 1. A.Ulmer for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.

14-0

Then

4-19-ATL 29 (1:03) R.Longwell 47 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-R.Davis, Holder-D.Pederson.

Then

4-9-GB 50 (14:45) C.Mohr punts 33 yards to GB 17, Center-D.Rackley. T.Williams MUFFS catch, RECOVERED by ATL-G.Layne at GB 21. G.Layne to GB 21 for no gain (S.Warren).

That leads to another TD.

At that point its 21-0. Then:

4-2-ATL 2 (6:37) A.Green up the middle to ATL 6 for -4 yards (E.Johnson). Yes that great A. Green, stopped at 4th and goal.

Then Vick leads a 90 yard drive from his own 5 yards for a FG. Which eats up 7 minutes of the 2nd quarter.

24-0 at half.

How much of that First Half do you put on Favre? He had one INT and that lead to no points. If you think that GB team was any near SB calibar to be down 24-0 to Vick at home, I don't know what to tell you.

At the point of Favre's 2nd INT, it was in the 4th quarter, when they were already down 31-7, and that didn't even lead to points - Btw, Longwell missed ANOTHER FG.

THAT TEAM SUCKED, you can't look at Box Scores, you have to watch the games. To lose at home to MICHAEL F'N VICK. These are these myths people make up in their mind that somehow these Packers teams were better than actually were. They were not.

Favre took a lot of these medicore teams and made them great by turning bum RBs and bum WRs into decent players. Yes, I guess you can blame him for not carrying these teams even further, but how many QBs honestly carried a crappy team to a SB? Seriously, I can't even think of one.

And anytime your D cannot stop a 4th and 27, is a joke. If your premise is that the QB has to be great in every game, thats not the case. LOTS of QBs have won SB with their D winning them a game - Saints/Vikings, the D won them that game the fumbles and INTs. The Saints O had hardly any yards against the Vikings. Is Brees SB any less sweet because he needed the D to bail him out, NO. Big f'n deal, I expect our D to stop a 4th and 27 and win us the game. Big deal. I bet if you go back in playoff history ,every team that won the SB, probably needed at some point for their D to make up for the O.

If your premise is that Favre is expected to put the team on his back every game (e.g., Seahawks v. Packers 2007), then he's not that good and you are bound be disappointed in Rodgers too. Overall, Favre is part of the blame in any loss but I really don't understand this myth that these Packers teams were so great and they would have won if Favre didn't screw them over.

---

Not to mention he plays in a Dome a minimum of 10 games a regular season.

---

I didn't bring up Favre so don't blame me. But honestly, how much of that 24-0 at half do you attribute to Favre when Vick ate up the clock on two long drives. Plus Longwell missed a FG and they got stopped at the Goal Line.

Then second half, I think Packers came out and scored a TD to make it 24-7 and then the Falcons put together another drive right away to answer to 31-7.

I just don't believe that these Packers teams were that good. Compare the Rams O to the Packers O that year minus Warner and Favre. And you will see why the whole house of cards depends on Favre.

---