It is really simple, and I do not get what is so hard to figure out.
Favre is and always will be better than Rodgers.
Ted Thompson should have never let brett out of GB, and the Packers would be at least 8-2 or 7-3 with Brett at QB.
Brett came out and literally carved up the titans d, rodgers was completely intimidated, and threw the ball into the dirt the entire first half.
"dhpackr" wrote:
Rodgers will never be Favre, that's agreeable.
I'm not a fan of Favre being out of GB at all, but to say he'd have given us 3 wins is just absurd. I think one for sure, and there's a second that could very well be. But the thing with our wins and losses they are not on the QB's play. We also don't know that some of the things Aaron has done helped us stay in games to win. Who knows, maybe Rodgers less risk taking approach helped us win a game or two?
I feel that three games is just completely absurd and must come from someone who's really not taking in the entire team effort concept. The game is played by more than one player, what's so hard to understand about that?
Brett carved up the Titans? I could have sworn I seen them running all over the Titans which makes passing a whole lot easier.
Aaron threw it into the grass the entire first half?
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29651&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2008&week=REG9&override=true Why is it so hard for you to be objective? Are you to actually do any research or attempt to understand the roster changes and the teams played against?
Edit, if it came down to having one player on my team that would determine win or loss with one play, I'd choose Brett Favre with no hesitation. Unfortunately the game isn't that easy.