I don't like the part where Wojciechowski is ripping Rodgers for throwing an INT to start the game in AZ. One bad decision, and you're saying that he's not an efficient QB? I guess that because Peyton Manning has made a bad decision, he's not very efficient either?

Makes no sense, especially when you're trying to defend Favre.

---

I agree with you there. I was more or less talking in terms of the article. It had pretty much been agreed upon that Rodgers probably won't have the longevity of Favre and so he won't be able to compete with his overall statistics. So what's left to decide it?

What if Rodgers continues the way he does and brings home greater records and more trophies than Favre. In the eyes of the fans who would leave behind a greater legacy? Who would be the better quarterback?

It doesn't matter if you're a great a player--if you're on a losing team the stigma follows you regardless of whether or not it's your fault. In addition, quarterbacks are most often linked to their team's overall success so records and championships mean more about their play than other positions.

As you pointed out there are always players who tend not to be as gifted passers that end up on winning teams, but it doesn't mean they weren't important. A QB still has to be a leader; still has to call plays; still has to make reads. They're essentially the offensive coordinator on the field. Dilfer may not have aired it out a lot when he played for the Ravens but it doesn't mean having him as their quarterback wasn't paramount to their season's success.

It also depends what we're arguing: who will be seen as the better player in the eyes of the public after their careers are over or who, given the same opportunities, be the better player? One is a question of public reception and the other of actual ability.

It's also important to note that their never can be a solid answer because of the difference situations both players have, and will, be in. Favre was a part of a Mike Holmgren team who had over 5 members of his coaching staff go on to be head coaches for other teams. He also played under Ray Rhodes and Mike Sherman. He played with great players on his offense and poor players on his offense. Rodgers has had a relatively stable slate of offensive players through his short career, many of them with a lot of talent. Favre has benefited a lot from having a great line through most of his tenure in Green Bay (Winters, Flanagan, Tauscher, Clifton, Rivera, Wahle) while Rodgers has yet to experience that consistency.

Unless Rodgers produces ungodly or terrifyingly poor numbers this debate will never be solved. That's why, ultimately, I agree with CDN. I feel lucky to have had Favre and Rodgers as my two QB's for the time that I've been on this earth.

This.

I can't tell if Seifert is just taking the mickey out of us with his exuberant defense of Rodgers.

Quite clearly if either of them believed that Rodgers could potentially challenge Favre for best all time they wouldn't have just peddled the same old tired stat line of yardage/touchdown and really dive into QB play analysis with situational stats qualified with a heavy measure of variability of team performance.

But no, let's divide Favre's career numbers by Rodgers' average season numbers and, fuck me sideways, what do we get, xx years before Rodgers can be better than Favre! That's worth writing an article about it. It sure as hell doesn't look like I spent 5 minutes of work on it.

---

Hey, I thought it was my job to call people wusses? :thumbright:

---

I think zero just had a joygasm when he saw this thread.

Even the Niners had "only" Joe & Steve. Could you imagine if we can put Rodgers in the same class as Starr & Favre? I can't think of any team that has 3 greats off the top of my head.

No, Ben R is not a great so that's one for the Steelers. Don Meredith falls short, so the Cows have Staubach and Aikman. I really hate putting Aikman in there as I think he doesn't deserve Great status but he is a Hall of Famer, like it or not.

Da Bears have been around since 1920 and they only got Sid Luckman.

---

It is the vogue thing to do apparently..

Personally.. It has been twenty years since we had to worry about our front line starter at QB.. something very few franchises have the luxury of saying.

Players leave.. player get cut and forced out all the time.. enjoy them if they are productive while here, thank them, root your ass off for them and accept that eventually they move on. The league/CBA is designed for it...

Now.. no players stats alone make him the best player in this league.. the variables are to vast (Players, Era, Playing location, franchise management) to make such an argument.. neither does a team stat as Superbowls..

But watching them play, what they did on the field and the impact they had on the game stood out.. that is what makes them great.

And as far as I know.. do date.. there isn't a statistic to measure that.

---

Has it really been twenty years since we needed to worry about our starter? The last few years in Green Bay (with the exception of 2007), Favre's performance was atrocious -- we're talking average ratings below 80 here. He may have been answering the bell week after week, but that doesn't mean he was putting the team in the best position to win (certainly not in the postseason anyway). A compelling argument could be made -- and I could bring up quite a few articles from the mid-2000s to back me up -- that Favre was in fact screwing the team by hanging on so long. Sure, the Packers' regular-season record might have been worse and there probably would have been a couple of bumpy regular seasons had he moved on, but it would have accelerated the onset of the post-Favre era, which probably would have been good for the team in the long run.

I think that because of the 2007 and 2009 seasons, it's easy for people to overlook how truly abysmal Favre was his last few years in Green Bay. The 2008 season was far more representative of his typical seasons from 2003 on.

---

LOL.. one that argues above that stats don't tell the whole story then turns around and points to stats to defend a stance. Ironic, simply ironic.

Blaze over the talent level, injury impacts in the WR (down to Taco Wallace), overhauling the roster with a new GM (which needed to be done) and lame duck coach going into a new system.. just being a couple of the variables those stats don't explain.

Not giving excuses.. just honestly saying that pointing to statistics only isn't validation in my mind.

---