Yerko
13 years ago
Bottom line is 'right here and now'

...and right here and now I would take Rodgers over Favre in a heartbeat.

Rodgers has shown he is an excellent quarterback behind a semi-average offensive line (with top quality receivers). I seriously could not imagine what would have happened if Favre was behind the Packers offensive line this last season.

Favre was surrounded with a lot more weapons in Minnesota, a better offensive line, and a cute dome with air conditioning.

Rodgers was surrounded with some weapons (mainly our WRs), a semi-average offensive line, and outdoor conditions.

I'll never take away what Favre did for the Pack, but here and now...Rodgers is the better quarterback and we are lucky we landed another quality one.
UserPostedImage
wamj2008
13 years ago
I see Rodgers as giving the team an opportunity to win multiple SB's, as he doesn't turn the ball over and make stupid plays. He's definitely made in the Tom Brady/Joe Montana/Mr. Cool mode, versus the Favre/Elway/Gunslinger style of play.

2 out of the last 3 years, Favre could have QB-ed the NFC contender if he hadn't thrown season-ending rookie picks.
blank
Greg C.
13 years ago

We forget that the early years of the "streak" were enabled in part by a Vicodin addiction.

"Wade" wrote:



I've never heard anyone say this. The way I understand it, the Vicodin addiction was a byproduct of injuries that required pain relief medication, but I wouldn't think that the Vicodin addiction "enabled" the consecutive game streak in any way.

Another point in this thread that I don't agree with is that Favre had an advantage over Rodgers because he played in a dome. I don't think it was a significant advantage. I don't remember any Packer home games played in bad weather last year.
blank
Brettizzle
13 years ago
Well he is right for the most part, Rodgers got burned by Favre on a lot of throws and Favre picked Rodgers off a few times last year.
Jermichael Finley

We will be in Indianapolis

bozz_2006
13 years ago

I'm not sure why, but when I watched him occasionally via videos at NFL.com, Dukes struck me as one of the better talking heads out there. Probably my OL bias (I also like Ross Tucker).

Not to mention the alternatives against which he is compared are typically so very, very bad, that anything remotely articulate seems good by comparison.

As to the substantive point. I would rather have Rodgers right now than Favre. In fact I can't think of a quarterback I'd rather have than Rodgers, save perhaps Bart Starr c. 1965. Not Favre. Not Brady. Not Brees. Not M*nning.

I think this is part of the reason I continue to be so damn unreasonable about the OL. I think about what Rodgers would do with a topflight line, instead of one I considered servicable at best at the end of last year, and it almost makes me drool. And I worry that, because of that line, there's too high a likelihood of that one low hit or cheap shot (can you say "New Orleans"?) away from the quarterback equivalent of Eddie Lee Ivery or Gale Sayers.

We Packer fans are so spoiled from the F*vre years of never missing a game. We forget that the early years of the "streak" were enabled in part by a Vicodin addiction. That the years of Favre's career did not all take place behind a dominant line, and that without his freakish durability, we would have had to make do without him more than once.

I think Rodgers has something that could make him the greatest quarterback ever. But not if he's on the sideline in street clothes.

"Wade" wrote:


Did someone say Ross Tucker? 
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago

We forget that the early years of the "streak" were enabled in part by a Vicodin addiction.

"Greg C." wrote:



I've never heard anyone say this. The way I understand it, the Vicodin addiction was a byproduct of injuries that required pain relief medication, but I wouldn't think that the Vicodin addiction "enabled" the consecutive game streak in any way.

Another point in this thread that I don't agree with is that Favre had an advantage over Rodgers because he played in a dome. I don't think it was a significant advantage. I don't remember any Packer home games played in bad weather last year.

"Wade" wrote:



I'm not making a moral judgment.

But the reason people take Vicodin is for pain. Severe pain. To lessen the pain.

There is no doubt that Favre has one of the highest pain thresholds out there. That he is able to play through pain that would bench any other quarterback. But he still has some pain threshold that he won't be able to handle. Everyone does. If he's taking Vicodin at time X, its because without it he's got concern that the pain is at/near a level he considers "too high" to perform at.

If he's taking too many Vicodin, there's a pain issue there.

The fact that he played with the help of Vicodin doesn't make him any less of "the NFL ironman to define NFL ironmen". But if he's not taking the hgh powered pain medication, he would have been more likely to pass whatever that "pain-threshold-beyond-which-even-Favre-couldn't-have-played".

But again, my main point is not that Favre wouldn't have had the streak. My main point is that we should not assume that Rodgers is an out-of-this-world ironman. It's better to assume that, when it comes to being able to play with injury, Rodgers is closer to the "average NFL quarterback" than he is to "the greatest ironman in NFL history".

My point is that if he gets hit too much, he's likely going to go down to injury sooner than Favre. And if he goes down unnecessarily (e.g., because he plays too many plays behind a sub-standard OL), the Packers will be losing what may be the best QB in the league.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Gravedigga
13 years ago



Favre was surrounded with a lot more weapons in Minnesota, a better offensive line, and a cute dome with air conditioning.

Rodgers was surrounded with some weapons (mainly our WRs), a semi-average offensive line, and outdoor conditions.

"G-Force" wrote:




Here we go again with you guys. You say he had a lot more weapons which couldnt be further from the truth. His weapons coming into the season were much worse, esepcially considering he never played with them. I would definitely take the Packers weapons on offense over Minnesotas. For all the talk of Minnys "great" O-line, they couldn't run block worth shit and it was all on Favres shoulders at the end of the year. That o-line provided him with multiple ass kickings at the end of the year(Arizona, Chicago, New Orleans) off the top of my head.

Receivers.........are you kidding. The packers had and still have the best group of receivers in the league IMO. Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson and the two tight ends vs Harvin(rookie), Rice(nothing before Favre showed up), Berrian(overrated, one trick pony), Schianko(nothing before Favre showed up).

Grant vs Peterson I give you that but Peterson fumbled away games with his 7 fumbles while Grant stayed consistent and got good in the 2nd half of the year and fumbled once. Also, for all this talk, Grant had 4.4 yards per carry and 1253 yards vs Petersons 4.4 yards per carry and 1383 yards. Not a significant difference. 11 TD's vs 18 but that's more reflective of field position than anything else.

Stop trying to discount what Favre did by making stuff up about weapons. Only makes you look bitter.
--------------------------------------------
UserPostedImage


A wise man once said
---------------------------------------------
You are weak, pathetic and immature..............I would have d
Tezzy
13 years ago
First, I don't think in anyway is Jamie Dukes stupid. And certainly not for these Favre comments. Plain and simple, Rodgers went 0-2 against Favre and was 0-1 in the playoffs while Favre was 1-1. Call that butt licking if you like, but I don't see it. If that's not someones criteria for what says one QB is better than another, so be it. But it definetely isn't a stupid opinion if you ask me. Either you agree or disagree, but I don't understand the ad hominem.
On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."
go.pack.go.
13 years ago

Bottom line is 'right here and now'

...and right here and now I would take Rodgers over Favre in a heartbeat.

Rodgers has shown he is an excellent quarterback behind a semi-average offensive line (with top quality receivers). I seriously could not imagine what would have happened if Favre was behind the Packers offensive line this last season.

Favre was surrounded with a lot more weapons in Minnesota, a better offensive line, and a cute dome with air conditioning.

Rodgers was surrounded with some weapons (mainly our WRs), a semi-average offensive line, and outdoor conditions.

I'll never take away what Favre did for the Pack, but here and now...Rodgers is the better quarterback and we are lucky we landed another quality one.

"G-Force" wrote:



I disagree with one thing in this post. Favre was NOT surrounded with more weapons. Yes, he had the best RB in the NFL and a few good receivers, but I don't think that Minnesota's receivers are anywhere close to the talent that the Packers have. Add Jermichael Finley in the contest and it's not even close.

The Vikings offensive line IS better though. I'll give you that.

Just remember: Favre makes just about any receiver look good. Just look at Sidney Rice for an example. He wasn't all that great before he got Brett as his QB.
UserPostedImage
Packers_Finland
13 years ago

First, I don't think in anyway is Jamie Dukes stupid.

"Tezzy" wrote:



After saying Peppers > Allen. I'd say he is stupid. Well that, and the fact that he thinks Vick deserves a second chance as a starter but Clausen doesn't deserve a starting spot (after displaying "immaturity" in college).

Edit: I think he's not wrong in saying Favre is better than Rodgers. That's a credible opinion. But the way he acted during that Favre vs Rodgers segment was the definition of being a biased idiot.
This is a placeholder
Fan Shout
beast (8h) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word
Nonstopdrivel (8h) : Not THAT f-word.
Zero2Cool (8h) : fuck
beast (9h) : 49ers are Cap Tight
beast (9h) : Fuck
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later
TheKanataThrilla (9h) : Love you NSD
Nonstopdrivel (10h) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.
Nonstopdrivel (10h) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.
TheKanataThrilla (10h) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight
TheKanataThrilla (10h) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?
Zero2Cool (10h) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk
Zero2Cool (11h) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!
Mucky Tundra (12h) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide
Mucky Tundra (12h) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR
Mucky Tundra (12h) : @DMRussini
Mucky Tundra (12h) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!
dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)
dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol
beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.
wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.
Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan
Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.
Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?
Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk
Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol
beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal
beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost
beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen
beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC
Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.
beast (21-Apr) : Can't tell if this is real or BS, but some rumors about a possible Patriots/Vikings trade for #3 overall
dfosterf (21-Apr) : One playbook to my knowledge. I was shooting for facetious.
beast (20-Apr) : I'm not sure they have different playbooks for different OL positions, and Dillard run blocking is supposedly worse than his pass blocking..
dfosterf (19-Apr) : The only problem with that is he isn't a guard either.
dfosterf (19-Apr) : Put him at right guard. That is where he will be coached. That is where he will compete. He is not even allowed to look at the LT playbook.
dfosterf (18-Apr) : Kidding aside, I hope the best for him.
dfosterf (18-Apr) : Went to a Titans board. One comment there. Not very long. I quote: "LOL" They don't sound overly upset about our aquisition.
beast (18-Apr) : OT Dillard has been absolutely horrible... like OG Newman levels
dfosterf (18-Apr) : Suit him up and have him stand in front of the big board as a draft day cautionary tale.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

24-Apr / Random Babble / beast

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Apr / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

19-Apr / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Apr / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.