dhazer
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
dfosterf (1m) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
dfosterf (8m) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (9m) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
dfosterf (10m) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
dfosterf (13m) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
packerfanoutwest (13m) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
beast (19m) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
beast (20m) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
beast (21m) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
beast (21m) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
dfosterf (54m) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
dfosterf (58m) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
dfosterf (1h) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
dfosterf (1h) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
beast (7h) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
14m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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