I agree with you that the receiving arsenal Rodgers has is superior to that of Favre. However, you can't also completely minimalize the Vikings receiving group. Visanthe Shiancoe wasn't nothing before Favre as he had 596 yards and 7 tds the year before Favre (as opposed to 566 and 11). Guys like Rice and Harvin are young and Favre certainly helped them out, but they also matured and got better on their own as well.

That said, I think over the course of the year, the offense around Rodgers and Favre probably weren't that far off one another. They had different strengths and weaknesses but on the whole the two are relatively even. Over the whole of last year Favre and Rodgers both played extremely well and you could make legitimate claims one way or another which one played better.

However, in the context of what Jamie Dukes has said, that Rodgers can't be better until he beats Favre, you can't say Rodgers had the better situation in those two games with the way his oline played. He was sacked 14 times in those two games. That was the difference. The Vikings dominated the line of scrimmage and Favre and co made us pay. Rodgers got beat to living hell and almost dug us out of holes in both games. I don't think you could flip the quaterbacks and get a different outcome. As you said Gravedigga, Favre got beat up in a couple of games the Vikings play. They lost those three games and Favre didn't play particularly well. Those couple games wouldn't be the right indicator for judging how good Favre was on the whole last year.

"G-Force" wrote:

Also as they say "you have to beat the man to be the man" but I would take Rodgers over Favre right now.

BTW Rock I thought they ruled the last play an INT because his arm was coming foward and not a fumble.

Rodgers did choke in OT noone can deny that, he missed a wide open Jennings that would have ended the game and then he had the int/fumble to end the game.

"dhazer" wrote: