It feels good to debate about what potential Hall of Fame QB was better, considering many teams dont even have one. :)
Not counting 0-16 Detroit, Aaron Rodgers has exactly one fourth quarter comeback in his career. That was week one of 09 against Chicago. There is no basis for Rodgers playing as well in critical situations. Im as excited as anyone about this current crop of Packers, but they had flaws. In fact, part of the 2010 Packers' problems this year was its inability to win the close games. They got over that in the playoffs, but in large part because of their defense.
In Super Bowl XLV, the Packers had a chance to put the game away on offense. They failed. They settled for a field goal. The defense clinched the win again, as they did in Chicago and Philadelphia.
Too many variables factor into the QB position. If you solely use QB rating in QB analysis, you back yourself in a corner.
Ill use Rivers as an example.
Is Phillip Rivers better than Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers?
Rivers had a higher rating and completion percentage, though those go hand-in-hand. In fact, I say Rivers' current three year run is better than Favre's MVP seasons and Rodgers' current three-year run. Hes had a higher QB rating in each of the last three years, which are Rodgers' only seasons as a starting QB. The same applies for completion percentage.
Is Rivers better than either Favre or Rodgers?
I personally don't think so, but the QB rating says he is. Then it must be true!
Look, the QB rating is one of many variables. Im not saying to overlook stats, but you cannot put a bigger emphasis on one stat than the next. You need to factor many variables in, but most importantly, just watched the two players play. As good as Rodgers was in 2010, 96 Favre was dominating. I said it before, but mid 90s Favre was among the best QBs in the history of the NFL. He made it look easy. I have a 95 game against Chicago, you watch him throw the ball in the game, and his velocity is unbelievable. It was better then than it was in the 2000s.
Now, that is one season, but I think it is clear you are letting other years factor into the comparison. You can't do that in my view. Errors in 2003 or wearing purple the last two years does not take away from success in 1996.
There is validation to your argument with 2000s Brett Favre. His lack of consistency is documented. Montana was consistent. Brady is consistent. Rodgers has been. Keep in mind; Rodgers only has three years of starting experience. It took Favre five years to win his first Super Bowl. I know I keep knocking on wood, but Rodgers is just getting started. This 2010 team is the baby of the litter. The real comparison is going to be 96 to 2011 or beyond. It isnt etched in stone yet.