This thread includes Favre, but I believe it merits discussion in the Packers section.

In thinking about the inevitable comparisons drawn between Rodgers and Favre -- many of which are unnecessary and unhelpful -- "age" comes to mind.

Rodgers was not thrown into the fire in the same way Favre was as a young quarterback. That's not an slander on Rodgers so much as a statement of fact. Favre was 23 in his first season as starter for Green Bay. In addition, his year in Atlanta could hardly count as "development" for a quarterback. Rodgers had the benefit -- as he has himself stated -- of sitting behind a great quarterback in Favre. During that time Rodgers made adjustments to his game that must also be given credit, considering his success last season.

In any case. Does age play a role in a quarterbacks development? If a quarterback is 25 years old does it matter significantly if he is in his first year as a starter (Rodgers) or third year as a starter (Favre)? Does simply being around the pro game and aging athletically in your mid 20s bring success at the pro level? One might think that Favre's season when he was 25 was statistically superior to Rodgers 2008 season.

Favre going from age 25 to 26 experienced a huge spike and what was ultimately one of his best seasons as a pro. Can we take age as a variable in this success? Or do we put it on number of years starting? Rodgers is probably a more cerebral quarterback than Favre was at 25 going on 26. But Favre had started more games. Favre jumped from 33TD/14int as a 25 year old to 38TD/13INT and an MVP as a 26 year old.

Is it possible that Aaron makes a similar relative spike? He threw 28TD/13int last season. Next season, as a 26 year old, does he maybe throw 32TD/12int? Or does he have a second year slump (as a starter) like Favre? Or is this comparison faulty in itself?

Personally I think he'll throw around 30 touchdowns and 13-15 interceptions. I suspect that not many give age much of a role in a quarterbacks development. I guess I'm actually more interested in what affect Rodgers three years in waiting had on his progress. I don't think Rodgers will struggle in his second season as a starter. At this point he is ahead of the curve, in my opinion.

---

I think it does. Matt Cassel springs to mind as another QB that sat behind an all-pro and emerged on his own after never being a starter.

Learning from a mentor certainly helps, but I think becoming a star just comes from the experience of playing football. I think you'll notice this throughout the next 2-3 years of Rodgers career. With more experience, I expect to continue to see him improve, which bodes well for packer nation.

Anyone can hate on Ted, Rodger's, or the Packer organization if they choose, but there are a lot of organizations that would gladly change places with us. Especially with our new coaching staff. The Packers have as much potential as anyone in the league. Now it's up to see if we live up to that potential ..

I expect Rodgers' growth to be a combination of experience and reaching his athletic prime. In five or six years as a veteran quarterback, how good could this guy be? (I'm saying I think he'll be quite good)

---

Rodgers in the long run I think has been put in the perfect situation. He's got to learn for a few years and now gets to start his career on a good team also won't take the beating (I hope) a young QB takes his first few years so Im thinking he could be productive for 10-15 seasons yet

No offense but do you follow football much? Your not the only one i have seen that says Rodgers will play for 10-15 years. The reason i ask is there are very few qbs that play for 10 years so i don't know why you think he will play until he is 40.

I know people will say i'm taking a jab at Rodgers but i am not. Just facts that not many qbs play until they are 40.

---

Yea, you definitely are correct about that. I think it's that a lot of us really hope he can play that long. There definitely is a shortage of franchise QBs that play 10-15 years in the this league....I guess we just like to be optimistic.

It would be amazing if we got consistency at the QB position for 30+ years.

---

Age does have a part. I believe they say that most peoples brains are not fully developed, especially the risk areas, until around 23 years old. I think part of Rodgers decent performance is that not being a starter, it was easier for him to make adjustments to his throw.

The reports are out that say that he completely reworked his throw, and how he carries the ball in the pocket. Not something that most starters do during the season. Starters make smaller adjustments over a greater period of time. Rodgers really had nothing stopping him from making any change the QB coach wanted.

I expect a decent advancement in Rodgers this next year. He really had nothing left to learn on the bench, and could only learn more by playing.

Favre, was thrown in, but Favre also had that mentality that most of us loved. He would try anything at anytime. Would more time on the bench helped Favre, I don't think so.

---

So he does not play 10 years?

8 years and 3 Superbowls will be just fine.

---

Or does he pull a Tony Romo and put up good stats but can't win a big game? I really like your dreams of 3 Super Bowls but it won't happen. We are not even close to in the class of the Steelers and Pats. But i think we are in the class of the Cowgirls and Chargers.

You can take this as a jab if you want but Romo put up big stats his 1st year and got a huge contract but couldn't win a playoff game. Since his 1st year he has been declining. So hopefully Rodgers don't follow in Romo's shoes.

Rodgers put up good stats and got a huge contract and couldn't win games, so step one is the same. The rest is yet to be seen.

---