dhazer
13 years ago

As of now, Rodgers has a 4-1 playoff record. Favre had a 7-3 playoff record at this point. I think it will be very interesting to compare their playoff record after Rodger's has had 4 seasons with playoff runs.

Rodgers clearly has the better winning % in the playoffs, but the sample size is too small. To me, win % and td:int ratio in the playoffs are the best ways to really compare quarterbacks. You see guys like Bart Star, Joe Montana, and Tom Brady really excel in those stats, and its hard to say they aren't some of if not the best ever.

So when we compare TD:INT, at this stage Rodgers is currently 13:3. Favre was 18:7. So both Rodger's winning % and TD:INT ratio are significantly better than Favre at this point, and this is arguably Favre in his prime, as far as winning in the playoffs go.

I say there isn't enough data to make a real comparison, but Rodgers certainly looks like the more efficient QB at this point.

Now Favre's career numbers:
44:30 TD:INTs
13-11 W/L

Looking at that, I think its safe to say that Rodgers does not need to play 15 more years to be considered a better QB than Favre, he just needs to keep up with his projected playoff stats. Hell, even 5 more years of reasonably good playoff performances might do it. If Rodgers playoff statline reads more Bart Star than it does Brett Favre at the end of his career, I think it will be hard to say he wasn't the best all time. Another Superbowl win will leave no doubt.

"earthquake" wrote:




If you go by a qb's w-l % in the playoffs to judge them then I guess one of the best ever qbs has to be Big Ben with a 10-3 playoff record and 3 Super Bowls in 7 years 😞
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
reed
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago

UserPostedImage

"wpr" wrote:



You're an asshole, wpr, but that is one of the reasons why I like you.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
13 years ago

UserPostedImage

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



You're an asshole, wpr, but that is one of the reasons why I like you.

"wpr" wrote:



I am humbled by your high praise. thank you.
UserPostedImage
warhawk
13 years ago
I like this team better for one big reason and that is Brett Favre would always try and put the team on his back in these big games and far to often ended up making critical mistakes.

From what I have seen Rodgers is far better focused and more deadly when it gets to the post season then Brett. I mean I loved the guy but he would get impatient and start looking for that miracle throw that too often ended up being caught by the other guys.

I saw Rodgers at least three times in these playoffs bring the team down for an important TD just following a momentum changing score by the other team and it broke their back.

That's called money. Besides Joe Montana I'm not sure I would want anybody other than Rodgers behind center.
"The train is leaving the station."
mi_keys
13 years ago

As of now, Rodgers has a 4-1 playoff record. Favre had a 7-3 playoff record at this point. I think it will be very interesting to compare their playoff record after Rodger's has had 4 seasons with playoff runs.

Rodgers clearly has the better winning % in the playoffs, but the sample size is too small. To me, win % and td:int ratio in the playoffs are the best ways to really compare quarterbacks. You see guys like Bart Star, Joe Montana, and Tom Brady really excel in those stats, and its hard to say they aren't some of if not the best ever.

So when we compare TD:INT, at this stage Rodgers is currently 13:3. Favre was 18:7. So both Rodger's winning % and TD:INT ratio are significantly better than Favre at this point, and this is arguably Favre in his prime, as far as winning in the playoffs go.

I say there isn't enough data to make a real comparison, but Rodgers certainly looks like the more efficient QB at this point.

Now Favre's career numbers:
44:30 TD:INTs
13-11 W/L

Looking at that, I think its safe to say that Rodgers does not need to play 15 more years to be considered a better QB than Favre, he just needs to keep up with his projected playoff stats. Hell, even 5 more years of reasonably good playoff performances might do it. If Rodgers playoff statline reads more Bart Star than it does Brett Favre at the end of his career, I think it will be hard to say he wasn't the best all time. Another Superbowl win will leave no doubt.

"dhazer" wrote:




If you go by a qb's w-l % in the playoffs to judge them then I guess one of the best ever qbs has to be Big Ben with a 10-3 playoff record and 3 Super Bowls in 7 years :(

"earthquake" wrote:



...and Trent Dilfer is better than Marino because he has a ring.

I'm with you. You can't just look at the w-l%. It's just one of dozens of metrics out there to judge a quarterback by and when used out of context it can make you come to the wrong conclusions (like Roethlesberger being one of the best ever :pukeright: ).

As for the OP, I think the '96 team would win. They had the number 1 offense, the number 1 defense, and the number 1 special teams. They went to the NFC Championship game the year before and the Super Bowl the year after and are up there with the greatest teams of all time imho. the '10 team would give them a good run for their money though and they have the potential to surpass the '96 team in terms of pure ability and accomplishments in the coming years.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
Warhawk raises a good point. Go back and watch those Super Bowls -- really watch them. Notice the drastic difference in coaching decisions. Mike McCarthy put the game in Aaron Rodgers' hands. Mike Holmgren took the game out of Brett Favre's hands.

In that sense, the '10 team is unquestionably better.
UserPostedImage
earthquake
13 years ago

As of now, Rodgers has a 4-1 playoff record. Favre had a 7-3 playoff record at this point. I think it will be very interesting to compare their playoff record after Rodger's has had 4 seasons with playoff runs.

Rodgers clearly has the better winning % in the playoffs, but the sample size is too small. To me, win % and td:int ratio in the playoffs are the best ways to really compare quarterbacks. You see guys like Bart Star, Joe Montana, and Tom Brady really excel in those stats, and its hard to say they aren't some of if not the best ever.

So when we compare TD:INT, at this stage Rodgers is currently 13:3. Favre was 18:7. So both Rodger's winning % and TD:INT ratio are significantly better than Favre at this point, and this is arguably Favre in his prime, as far as winning in the playoffs go.

I say there isn't enough data to make a real comparison, but Rodgers certainly looks like the more efficient QB at this point.

Now Favre's career numbers:
44:30 TD:INTs
13-11 W/L

Looking at that, I think its safe to say that Rodgers does not need to play 15 more years to be considered a better QB than Favre, he just needs to keep up with his projected playoff stats. Hell, even 5 more years of reasonably good playoff performances might do it. If Rodgers playoff statline reads more Bart Star than it does Brett Favre at the end of his career, I think it will be hard to say he wasn't the best all time. Another Superbowl win will leave no doubt.

"dhazer" wrote:




If you go by a qb's w-l % in the playoffs to judge them then I guess one of the best ever qbs has to be Big Ben with a 10-3 playoff record and 3 Super Bowls in 7 years :(

"earthquake" wrote:



Yes, as with any time you're just comparing stats there are going to be some aberrations. Logic would tell you Big Ben isn't one of the all time greats, however, he is one of the most successful QB's in playoff history, that is true. Whether that is a product of his team more than anything is another debate. Though, most QB's that have won the superbowl have played for pretty good teams. =P

I think when we start making these sort of comparisons, we have to temper it with the QBs we logically would rank in terms of the best. Stats can help when you want to say, compare Brady to Manning, both are excellent quarterbacks, but when we talk success in the playoffs, Brady really sets himself apart with a 0.717 winning percent, and Manning with 0.474, is among the worst when we talk all time great QBs in the playoffs. This tends to mesh pretty well with the logical and universal idea that Brady is clutch in the playoffs, and Manning chokes more often than not.

Sorry to get off topic, but if someone has a better analytical way to compare the greatest QBs other than win % and TD:INT ratio it the playoffs, I would be glad to hear it.

If we go by stats alone, Jim Plunket has a better winning %(80%) than anyone worth noting aside from Bart Star(90%) in the playffs, but it only takes a little common sense to come to the conclusion that Jim Plunket isn't a better QB than Joe Montana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_starting_quarterback_playoff_records 
blank
porky88
13 years ago
Personally, I like to use my eyes and brains to analyze QBs. You can find a statistic to backup on any valid argument.

The knock on Favre throughout his career is his lack of consistency. That showed up after Mike Holmgren left. Hell, it even showed up during the early stages of the Holmgren era. Unlike Favre, Rodgers' best quality is arguably his consistency.

The point I am making here is that mid 90s Favre gets the nod over Rodgers and any QB I think that has ever played the game. To take away from the 1990s Brett Favre is to take away from the legacy of the Packers. He was amazing. However, Rodgers does have an opportunity to have a more consistent career.

Consistency = better career.
Pack93z
13 years ago
The Defensive Line and Linebackers on the 96 were better than the 2010 Packers. Corners in 2010 were better and deeper by far. Safeties were a push.. both teams had talent.. albeit Peprah came out of nowhere to solidify the 2010 team. We were a more dominate defense in 96 than were were last season over the base of the campaign.

On offense.. the TE's & Full Backs were better on the 96 squad. Lines were really a push.. 2010 had better talent on the edges.. 96 was stronger up the interior. Recievers for both squads were a talented push.. although I will lean the 2010 squad was deeper.. and the backs on both squads were adequate.

96 Special teams were light years ahead of this 2010 group.. IMO.

QB... as much as people want to run down Brett Favre (a ton of valid reasons to do so) he was just as much as a reason we won the 96 season vs holding us back as some claim. The three years Brett put together in the 90's were spectacular.. albeit years removed some apparently gloss over that fact.

Now that isn't saying I would take Brett over Aaron.. more of saying we have been fortunate to have two exceptional QB's guiding this team for more than 2 decades. That is truly special back to back.. IMO.


I can't wait until the twilight of Aaron's career to watch and see if the next generation of Packers fan embrace the next QB over Aaron like we have seen in the past couple of years.. although Brett helped shove that train along with his antics.. point is.. for the fans that grew up watching Brett help bring this club back to the forefront of the league.. it isn't as easy to discredit what he accomplished on the field for the Packers as it is for some.

First rule I learned years ago (Lofton) never marry yourself to a player.. sooner or later they have to leave the club.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
nerdmann
13 years ago

Warhawk raises a good point. Go back and watch those Super Bowls -- really watch them. Notice the drastic difference in coaching decisions. Mike McCarthy put the game in Aaron Rodgers' hands. Mike Holmgren took the game out of Brett Favre's hands.

In that sense, the '10 team is unquestionably better.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:





Well stated. Plus one!
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Fan Shout
beast (23-Feb) : Seems like he was just pissed because he was no longer the starter
beast (23-Feb) : Campbell is right, he's rich and he doesn't have to explain sh!t... but that attitude gives teams reasons to never sign him again.
dfosterf (22-Feb) : I have some doubt about all that
dfosterf (22-Feb) : I read De'Vondre Campbell's tweet this morning (via the New York Post) Florio says that if he invested his earnings wisely, he will be good
beast (20-Feb) : I haven't followed, but I believe he's good when healthy, just hasn't been able to stay healthy.
dfosterf (20-Feb) : Hasn"t Bosa missed more games than he has played in the last 3 years?
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell
Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins
Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.
Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.
Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol
Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?
packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

15-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.