Dexter, you pick out stats like thats the end all. You only look at one side of the coin. I just don't understand how people cannot concede a single point.

If the Packers only got to SuperBowl XXXII in spite of Favre, how about that Seattle/Packers game. With that logic, if Favre hadn't took over (IN snow), the Packers wouldn't have got to that Giants game, so is that mean that mean that the Giants game is a wash? You can't say that the D didn't suck in SuperBowl XXXII because they "saved" Favre in a previous playoff game.

Go back and look at past SuperBowl winners, I bet you anything a lot of the time the QB had bad games and they still won. I remember when Brady threw for 140 yards against the Colts and they still won 20-6 or something. Or all the bad games Big Ben had. When Peyton won his Super Bowl, he beat the Ravens with a game with 15-30, 150 yards, 0 TDs and 2 INTs. Is that mean that Peyton's SB means anything less? NO, of course not, his defense saved him, plain and simple.

Btw, the Vikings game, go look at Culpepper's stats and what the score was 5 minutse into the game. And how is too much to ask that your team stop a 4th and 27, I still don't understand. Regardless of what they did, its a 4th and 27! 4th and 27!

I just don't understand how anyone can argue that those teams were that great and Favre screwed them. Keep overrating Favre's O too, how many HOF'ers did Favre have on that O throughout those years? Plus I also assume you thought that Favre's coaches were awesome too (Sherman). He did more with less and then when the playoffs came and you play better teams, the Packers were exposed a lot of the time.

Is Favre perfect? NO, not even close. He was a big part of the losses in the playoffs, just like any other player on a team. Just like Rodgers was part of the blame for the Cardinals game. You can keep dreaming in this world where he gets a pass but he sucked in the 1st half and missed a wide open Jennings to win the game. He's part of the reason for the loss. BUT WHO CARES, that D was not winning a SB.

Overall, I'm also getting sick of the obsession with just looking at Box Scores and stats to prove arguments in Football. It's not baseball. There is so much more at play.

I'm sure Ryan Grant's franchise playoff record rushing performance had nothing to do with the comeback....

What? You did watch the game and Grants two fumbles in the first 5 minutes to make it 14-0???

Are we seriously not even going to give credit to Favre for that Seahawks game either? It was a young inexperienced team, you don't think Favre's presence, being down 14-0 in the first five minutes had anything to do with that comeback?

If you honestly can watch that game and not say Favre's calm and play was the biggest reason for that win, I don't know what to say.

Thank you, I agree. Rodgers has the potential to be great but its still very early. With Favre, all I'm saying is that yes, he choked but its a team game.

I just don't get the double standard. If the 2000 Packers lost in the playoffs, its Favre's fault, if the 2000 Packers won a playoff game, it was with help (e.g., Ryan Grant). If Rodgers goes 6-10, "hey, its a team game!", if Rodgers sucks in 1/2 of a playoff game and chokes in OT, "hey, he got the team that far".

I believe overall, its a team game, you win and lose as a team - Colts/Ravens, Peyton won with a game with 150 yards, 0 Tds, 2 INTs and won the Super Bowl. I think the QB is more important than other positions and I think Rodgers inexperience (NOT his talent) led to the 6-10 season and I think Favre would have done better. And that is where the Rodgers apologies kill me, how can you honestly say that a 17 year vet coming off a 13-3 season with chemistry on that offense wouldn't have done better than 6-10 with a rookie QB. NO one is saying Rodgers sucked, its just about experience. But people cherry pick arguments and for some reason it would kill them to concede anything.

I also think zero percent chance Favre makes that comeback in AZ because he has trouble playing from behind but maybe they never get in that position because Favre wouldn't have had first time playoff jitters. It's all give and take IMO.

All I know about the Favre era in Green Bay is that with the players we had along with the talent at quarterback, there should be hardware in the trophy case. I'm hoping that with the new leadership behind our current talented quarterback, some of those problems will be erradicated.

I think the 49ers and Cowboys have quietly stocked their teams as well, so it should be fun going forward.

Hey, keep it on topic zero, this thread is about Rodgers, not kicking someone in the mommy-daddy pills! :icon_smile:

On that note, I think Rodgers will figuratively kick Brent in the nuts this year!

I was at the game and Grant had 201 yards rushing and 3TDs (both franchise playoff records). Favre led a great drive after the second fumble, but it was almost all Grant after that.