nope. just wrong. I thought it would take more time for Brett to be an effective QB.

---

Yeah
1st official start 144.6 vs Pitt
famous Oakland game 154.9

Giants in 2009 with Minny 148.7

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00/gamelog// 

There are more, but you get the drift

Favre had a total of 13 games in his career with a rating over 140, including 3 with a rating over 150.

Aaron Rodgers has 4 games over 140 (plus one game with a 139.9 rating), including 1 with a rating over 150.

What I think is more remarkable is that Rodgers has had a rating of over 100 in 35 of the 61 (57.4%) regular-season games and 4 out of the 5 postseason (80%) games in which he has appeared. In total he has posted 39 games (59.1%) with ratings over 100. I wonder how many other quarterbacks could say that at this point in their career.

---

Aaron Rodgers has the benefit of a lot more rules helping the offense than Brett Favre did. Not saying what Aaron is doing is not great, but we can not be naive to the facts of the rules.

---

It was a matter-of-fact statement. No opinion was expressed one way or the other. It was simply a response to Cal2GreenBay's implication that Favre had never had ratings over 140.

---

For the purposes of comparison, Favre posted ratings over 100 in 10 of 24 (41.7%) postseason games in which he appeared. The Packers won every one of those games. Of the 14 games in which he posted a rating below 100, the Packers won only 3. The Packers only won 1 of the 9 postseason games in which Favre's rating was 80 or below, a 21-7 decision against Tampa Bay in 1998. Favre's worst performance in the postseason was the St. Louis debacle, in which he finished with a rating of 53.5 and the Packers were defeated 17-45. He finished his career with a postseason rating of 86.3, slightly higher than his career regular season rating of 86.0.

Rodgers' lone postseason game under 100 was the 2011 NFC Championship game against the Chicago Bears, in which he posted a 55.4 rating and the Packers won 21-14. Despite that game, his overall postseason rating is an impressive 112.6, by far the highest in history and markedly higher than his career regular season rating of 102.7.

---

My mistake. I didn't see where you quoted his wording that made such implication.

---

I didn't quote him. My post followed directly after LTF's. I was just trying to corroborate and flesh out LTF's assertions. I apologize for the confusion.

Favre had some remarkable games. Five times in his career he completed over 80% of his passes, including a game against Seattle in 2009 when he completed a stunning 88% of his passes en route to a 35-9 win and another in which he completed 85.2% of his passes against Detroit during a 27-13 victory. Interestingly, three of those five games occurred while he was in Minnesota, including both in which he completed over 85% of his passes. He completed 75% or more of his passes 29 times in his career.

A further sign of his greatness is that he never completed less than 30% of his passes in any one game. Not many quarterbacks can lay claim to such a distinction.

---

For reference, the average Passer Rating in the NFL was

77.6 in '90
78.1 in '00
86.0 in '10
84.4 through week 10 in '11

The 86.0 in '10 was exceptionally high.
'07 was 82.6
'08 was 83.2
'09 was 83.4
so the mark in '11 is more in line with the normal progression. But it isn't linear.

That gives you an idea how much easier it is to throw in todays NFL compared to when Favre started.

When Favre started his run of 3 good years in '95, the average rating was 79.2 or about 4.8 points more difficult than today.

Rodgers having a 127 today is like someone having about a 122 in half a season in '95.

Rodgers having a career rating of 102.7 would be like someone having a 98.1 in '95.

Which also puts him .47 behind Steve Young who is 4th all time for career passer rating above average.

Favre is 47th and tied with Trent Green.

---

I don't think using the average of everyone is a good barometer. No rule is going to make a bad quarterback good. If you can not hit slant, read a defense, go through progressions, hit a wide open target, etc ... there is no rule that is going help you.

I believe the rules of the NFL now make good quarterbacks put up great numbers.

I think taking the top five of each decade would be a better barometer.

'90?
'00?
'10?


Does what I am saying make sense?

I think Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning still put up good numbers if they played in the '90s, but not gaudy numbers like they are now. Definitely still good enough to have strong consideration for the hall of fame.

---