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)
UserPostedImage
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
Zero2Cool (16h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (17h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
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
13m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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