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.
"Greg C." wrote:
You beat me to it, porky, by two days (I was out of town). As good as Rodgers was in 2010, Favre was almost untouchable in 1996. I think too many people are reading Favre's later flaws into the earlier part of his career. This article is about how Favre played in 1996, which was phenomenal.
Also, I'm not convinced that Holmgren reduced Favre's role in the Super Bowl. If he did, then who picked up the slack on offense? Edgar Bennett? Favre was a great all-around QB from 1995 to 1998. He carried that offense. The O-line was average, the receivers were banged up, and the backs were good role players but not difference-makers. Yet they still had the #1 offense in the league. That was mainly because of Favre. And if he needed a really good coach to help reach his potential, that shouldn't be a knock on him. Favre was the guy who was on the field and got the job done.
"porky88" wrote: