Who is better RIGHT NOW, Rodgers or Favre? (1 Viewer)

[ookook]

Rodgers has thrown 90 times for 714 yards and a completion rate of 56%. He has been sacked 12 times, thrown 4 TDs and 0 INT. PR of 97.2.

Favre has thrown 94 times for 566 yards and a completion rate of 65%. He has been sacked 9 times, thrown 5 TDs but only 1 INT. PR of 94.5.

Clearly their situations differ. Packers (arguably) have better WRs. Vikings (undoubtedly) have better RBs.

Hard to say for sure, but I would guess the Packers have had a little harder schedule so far.

What say ye? Who would you want leading your team next Sunday if you had to choose?

Edited to fix Rodgers stats.

Edited after Vikings victory Monday night: But last night 75% of the Shark Pool would have been wrong. Despite differences in the surrounding cast favoring Favre, he just outplayed Rodgers. Both are very good QBs right now, but Favre's experience and rocket arm give the advantage RIGHT NOW. A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks, Favre 9. Favre gets rid of it and Rodgers still holds onto it way too long.

Of course Rodgers has no protection, but if I had to pick a QB to start tomorrow it might be Favre over Rodgers!!!

 

[Kuz]

I'd much rather have Rodgers but Favre should be good enough to get us a win on Monday night & a two game lead on the Packers..

Here's to 4-0 baby..

 

[MCguidance]

I voted both, bc you let me.

Rodgers.

 

[bryhamm]

I voted both, bc you let me.Rodgers.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

That 56% completion rate for Rodgers is a bit misleading. The Packer receivers have really let the team down this year with way too many drops. (I believe its about 10 drops now, a ton on 90 attempts.) Rodgers also has been betrayed by his offensive line, which up until the last 3 quarters vs the Rams was offensive.

Favre was better in his MVP years than Rodgers is now, but as of right now, this one isn't close. Rodgers all the way.

 

[Tau837]

I love Favre, but the answer to this is obviously Rodgers. Assuming all of their rushing attempts were scrambles on called pass plays:

Rodgers: 117 plays, 710 yards and 5 TDs (combined rushing, receiving, and sacks), 0 turnovers

Favre: 104 plays, 508 yards and 5 TDs (combined rushing, receiving, and sacks), 1 turnover

Now consider that Rodgers has had 8 of his throws dropped, compared to just 3 of Favre's throws.

Now add in that Rodgers has played a tougher schedule, and it's obvious that he has played better IMO. That isn't to say Favre isn't playing well, but there is no reason for anyone to prefer Favre over Rodgers right now other than sentiment.

 

[BassNBrew]

Sort of like asking if I'd take Brady or Delhomme.

 

[ookook]

Sort of like asking if I'd take Brady or Delhomme.

Well, I voted for Rodgers but that anaolgy is just silly. Of course, I would rather have Rodgers than Brady and Favre than Delhomme, but equating Favre to Delhomme in any way is doing him a great disservice.

 

[ookook]

Sort of like asking if I'd take Brady or Delhomme.

Well, I voted for Rodgers but that anaolgy is just silly. Of course, I would rather have Rodgers than Brady and Favre than Delhomme, but equating Favre to Delhomme in any way is doing him a great disservice.

Would that we could ask Steve Smith (CAR) who he would rather have if given the choice between Favre and Delhomme.

 

[bbuster]

I love Favre, but the answer to this is obviously Rodgers. Assuming all of their rushing attempts were scrambles on called pass plays:

Rodgers: 117 plays, 710 yards and 5 TDs (combined rushing, receiving, and sacks), 0 turnovers

Favre: 104 plays, 508 yards and 5 TDs (combined rushing, receiving, and sacks), 1 turnover

Now consider that Rodgers has had 8 of his throws dropped, compared to just 3 of Favre's throws.

Now add in that Rodgers has played a tougher schedule, and it's obvious that he has played better IMO. That isn't to say Favre isn't playing well, but there is no reason for anyone to prefer Favre over Rodgers right now other than sentiment.

This seems odd to me since I saw more than 3 drops in the game yesterday.

 

[Tau837]

I love Favre, but the answer to this is obviously Rodgers. Assuming all of their rushing attempts were scrambles on called pass plays:

Rodgers: 117 plays, 710 yards and 5 TDs (combined rushing, receiving, and sacks), 0 turnovers

Favre: 104 plays, 508 yards and 5 TDs (combined rushing, receiving, and sacks), 1 turnover

Now consider that Rodgers has had 8 of his throws dropped, compared to just 3 of Favre's throws.

Now add in that Rodgers has played a tougher schedule, and it's obvious that he has played better IMO. That isn't to say Favre isn't playing well, but there is no reason for anyone to prefer Favre over Rodgers right now other than sentiment.

This seems odd to me since I saw more than 3 drops in the game yesterday.

I provided a link to the STATS site. I assume the difference might be that not everything a receiver gets his hands on is a drop. I'm not sure how it's officially determined, but I'm guessing it's a judgement call. Drops certainly don't tell a complete story... there are balls that a receiver could make a play on that isn't a drop if he doesn't... but you expect good receivers to make some of those plays. But presumably drops are generally scored the same across the league, so if you think you've seen more for Favre, then it's probably true that there have been more that some would feel were dropped for Rodgers. Someone earlier in the thread said he's had at least 10 balls dropped.

 

[ookook]

Bump for the Pool to reconsider.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I said I'd take Favre from '07 and right now that looks like who we got, so I'll stick with him.

 

[djcolts]

It is hard to tell after last night's game. Favre had all day to throw - and Rodgers sometimes had no time to throw - and sometimes he held on to the ball too long. There really wasn't an apples to apples comparison. The only conclusion I have is that the Vikings were the better team last night, and probably will be the better team this season.

 

[ookook]

I said I'd take Favre from '07 and right now that looks like who we got, so I'll stick with him.

So far he is sticking to what Childress scripts quite well and if anything improving on it.Hard to coach where to zip some of those passes.

 

[Breesisdaman]

Rodgers has thrown 90 times for 714 yards and a completion rate of 56%. He has been sacked 12 times, thrown 4 TDs and 0 INT. PR of 97.2.

Favre has thrown 94 times for 566 yards and a completion rate of 65%. He has been sacked 9 times, thrown 5 TDs but only 1 INT. PR of 94.5.

Clearly their situations differ. Packers (arguably) have better WRs. Vikings (undoubtedly) have better RBs.

Hard to say for sure, but I would guess the Packers have had a little harder schedule so far.

What say ye? Who would you want leading your team next Sunday if you had to choose?

Edited to fix Rodgers stats.

Edited after Vikings victory Monday night: But last night 75% of the Shark Pool would have been wrong. Despite differences in the surrounding cast favoring Favre, he just outplayed Rodgers. Both are very good QBs right now, but Favre's experience and rocket arm give the advantage RIGHT NOW. A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks, Favre 9. Favre gets rid of it and Rodgers still holds onto it way too long.

Of course Rodgers has no protection, but if I had to pick a QB to start tomorrow it might be Favre over Rodgers!!!

Had Farve been playing the Vikings defense this game wouldn't have even been close. Man with all the Farve talk, didnt you guys get enough Farve speak last night?

 

[HoTnickZ]

Behind which line?

 

[TitusIII]

Rodgers is elite, Favre is elite

If I'm building a team from scratch, I'd take Rodgers, as would 100% of NFL GM's, but for the 2009 season I think it's a toss-up. There is no question Rodgers is playing behind a terrible offensive line that will probably get him hurt AND keep the Packers out of the playoffs.

 

[GreenNGold]

Rodgers is elite, Favre is eliteIf I'm building a team from scratch, I'd take Rodgers, as would 100% of NFL GM's, but for the 2009 season I think it's a toss-up. There is no question Rodgers is playing behind a terrible offensive line that will probably get him hurt AND keep the Packers out of the playoffs.

I would rather have a QB with pocket presence. Therefore I take Favre. You can blame the offensive line all you want but most of the sacks last night were completely on Rodgers.

 

[TitusIII]

Rodgers is elite, Favre is eliteIf I'm building a team from scratch, I'd take Rodgers, as would 100% of NFL GM's, but for the 2009 season I think it's a toss-up. There is no question Rodgers is playing behind a terrible offensive line that will probably get him hurt AND keep the Packers out of the playoffs.

I would rather have a QB with pocket presence. Therefore I take Favre. You can blame the offensive line all you want but most of the sacks last night were completely on Rodgers.

I just can't blame Rodgers for looking a little rattled at times, he was getting pressured 70% of the time he dropped back and for the most part I think he handled it very well. That pocket presence will come with experience/confidence, unless the Packers fail to provide him with protection and he goes all David Carr...Bottom line, imo, is that Rodgers is far from a finished product, as are most QB's under the age of 30. If the Packers give him the tools that he needs, I have no doubt that he will be a top 5 NFL QB for quite some time. Watching the Bears/Packers/Lions develop their QB's/teams over the next 5 years will be very interesting...and given the Vikings O-Line, you can't count out whatever QB they throw back there once Favre retires in a year or two(or three)...If I had to choose between the two for the 2009 season, assuming that both were playing behind the same offensive line/with the same weapons, I'd take Favre, but it's not an easy call.

 

[ookook]

Rodgers has always taken too many sacks as a function of holding the ball too long. He average something like 1 sack every 7 attempts.

And Favre can make throws that Rodgers can't.

So as long as Brett is willing to play within the system and doesn't start throwing stupid stuff, he is probably better.

I saw several throws by Favre last night I suspect Rodgers would struggle with.

Decision-making is Favre's biggest problem. Lack of decision-making is Rodgers.

 

[Titus Pullo]

The Vikings are 4-0 BECAUSE of Favre not WITH Favre.

 

[jon_mx]

The Vikings are 4-0 BECAUSE of Favre not WITH Favre.

The Vikings are probably 2-2 without Farve

 

[jon_mx]

Farve is the better QB right now. Not sure if Farve can take a beating, and this is probably his last year, so I would rather have Rogers. But if I was playing one game right now, I would take Farve.

 

[big0mar]

Pocket presence doesn't do you #### when you have Jared Allen running toward you untouched.

Despite the terrible OL, Rodgers still kept GB in the game. If that drop in the endzone doesn't happen, or that phantom PI doesn't get called, we may be talking about GB winning that game.

 

[Titus Pullo]

The Vikings are 4-0 BECAUSE of Favre not WITH Favre.

The Vikings are probably 2-2 without Farve

No doubt. Favre won the last two games for them.

 

[GreenNGold]

Pocket presence doesn't do you #### when you have Jared Allen running toward you untouched.Despite the terrible OL, Rodgers still kept GB in the game. If that drop in the endzone doesn't happen, or that phantom PI doesn't get called, we may be talking about GB winning that game.

Which phantom PI call? The one where the Packers were offsides anyways?If McCarthy runs Grant 3x on 2nd & goal instead of trying to get all fancy, it would have been a different game IMO. Although I agree the drop in the end zone was bad, but that is also a risk when you choose to pass the ball. Run Grant 3x there will almost always result in a TD. The biggest thing holding Green Bay back is TT & MM. Both are incompetent.

 

[That Little Voice]

Edited after Vikings victory Monday night: But last night 75% of the Shark Pool would have been wrong. Despite differences in the surrounding cast favoring Favre, he just outplayed Rodgers. Both are very good QBs right now, but Favre's experience and rocket arm give the advantage RIGHT NOW. A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks, Favre 9. Favre gets rid of it and Rodgers still holds onto it way too long.

Of course Rodgers has no protection, but if I had to pick a QB to start tomorrow it might be Favre over Rodgers!!!

"A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks... Of course Rodgers has no protection."

 

[Chaka]

I can't imagine Favre performing better than Rogers behind Green Bay's offensive line but I can imagine Rogers performing at least as well as Favre behind Minnesota's.

 

[big0mar]

Pocket presence doesn't do you #### when you have Jared Allen running toward you untouched.Despite the terrible OL, Rodgers still kept GB in the game. If that drop in the endzone doesn't happen, or that phantom PI doesn't get called, we may be talking about GB winning that game.

Which phantom PI call? The one where the Packers were offsides anyways?If McCarthy runs Grant 3x on 2nd & goal instead of trying to get all fancy, it would have been a different game IMO. Although I agree the drop in the end zone was bad, but that is also a risk when you choose to pass the ball. Run Grant 3x there will almost always result in a TD. The biggest thing holding Green Bay back is TT & MM. Both are incompetent.

Was Grant successful at all running? Sorry, but I had more confidence in Rodgers getting the TD than Grant. Grant should have had a TD earlier, but he got stopped on the GL.And yes, I think Grant's contract was a waste, he isn't a very good RB. I blame Thompson for that.But at the same time, you can pick apart any GM in the league for bad decisions. TT is still one of the better GMs in the NFL.

 

[sho nuff]

Grant was successful running last night.

His contract is not all that big...why blame Thompson for an incentive laden contract?

HE got stopped after a 4 yard run from the 5...not like it was a terrible run and he was stopped from close close range.

 

[GreenNGold]

Pocket presence doesn't do you #### when you have Jared Allen running toward you untouched.Despite the terrible OL, Rodgers still kept GB in the game. If that drop in the endzone doesn't happen, or that phantom PI doesn't get called, we may be talking about GB winning that game.

Which phantom PI call? The one where the Packers were offsides anyways?If McCarthy runs Grant 3x on 2nd & goal instead of trying to get all fancy, it would have been a different game IMO. Although I agree the drop in the end zone was bad, but that is also a risk when you choose to pass the ball. Run Grant 3x there will almost always result in a TD. The biggest thing holding Green Bay back is TT & MM. Both are incompetent.

Was Grant successful at all running? Sorry, but I had more confidence in Rodgers getting the TD than Grant. Grant should have had a TD earlier, but he got stopped on the GL.And yes, I think Grant's contract was a waste, he isn't a very good RB. I blame Thompson for that.But at the same time, you can pick apart any GM in the league for bad decisions. TT is still one of the better GMs in the NFL.

He only had 11 rushes for 51 yards. Again McCarthy refuses to stick with the running game (similar to the NFC Championship vs NYG).

 

[MCguidance]

If I pick Favre does his line come with it?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Rodgers has always taken too many sacks as a function of holding the ball too long. He average something like 1 sack every 7 attempts.

And Favre can make throws that Rodgers can't.

So as long as Brett is willing to play within the system and doesn't start throwing stupid stuff, he is probably better.

I saw several throws by Favre last night I suspect Rodgers would struggle with.

Decision-making is Favre's biggest problem. Lack of decision-making is Rodgers.

Not really sure what throws Rodgers can't make. He's got a better deep ball than Favre ever did, and his velocity is excellent. Rodgers isn't a seasoned veteran QB yet, and it shows up on the field.

Keep this in mind, when Favre was in his second year as a starter, he was 24 years old. He threw 19 TDs and 24 INTs. Rodgers is in his second year as a starter at 25 years old, and he's at 6 TDs with 1 INT on the season. At 24, Rodgers threw for 28 TDs with 13 INTs. Rodgers was sacked 34 times last year, a number very comparable to most of the years Favre played with the Packers. Obviously the sacks are way up for Rodgers this year, and some of them are most certainly his fault. I just don't buy that Rodgers is being too indecisive. I think he's watching too much Roethlisberger, and trying to wait for receivers to come open.

If Favre were playing for the Packers last night, he would have had one of his 4-5 INT games, and the Packers would have lost 41-14. Take it from someone who saw everyone of his years in GB.

 

[Johnnymac]

Favre had tons of time to throw last night while Rodgers hand none. Favre was playing at home on Monday night. Favre played well.....Rodgers played great!

 

[Johnnymac]

Rodgers has always taken too many sacks as a function of holding the ball too long. He average something like 1 sack every 7 attempts.

And Favre can make throws that Rodgers can't.

So as long as Brett is willing to play within the system and doesn't start throwing stupid stuff, he is probably better.

I saw several throws by Favre last night I suspect Rodgers would struggle with.

Decision-making is Favre's biggest problem. Lack of decision-making is Rodgers.

Not really sure what throws Rodgers can't make. He's got a better deep ball than Favre ever did, and his velocity is excellent. Rodgers isn't a seasoned veteran QB yet, and it shows up on the field.

Keep this in mind, when Favre was in his second year as a starter, he was 24 years old. He threw 19 TDs and 24 INTs. Rodgers is in his second year as a starter at 25 years old, and he's at 6 TDs with 1 INT on the season. At 24, Rodgers threw for 28 TDs with 13 INTs. Rodgers was sacked 34 times last year, a number very comparable to most of the years Favre played with the Packers. Obviously the sacks are way up for Rodgers this year, and some of them are most certainly his fault. I just don't buy that Rodgers is being too indecisive. I think he's watching too much Roethlisberger, and trying to wait for receivers to come open.

If Favre were playing for the Packers last night, he would have had one of his 4-5 INT games, and the Packers would have lost 41-14. Take it from someone who saw everyone of his years in GB.

Absolutely no question about it....

 

[sho nuff]

Not sure about any 4-5 INTs...but those who think Favre just would get rid of the ball safely each time of those pressures is delusional as well.

 

[fatness]

Edited after Vikings victory Monday night: But last night 75% of the Shark Pool would have been wrong. Despite differences in the surrounding cast favoring Favre, he just outplayed Rodgers. Both are very good QBs right now, but Favre's experience and rocket arm give the advantage RIGHT NOW. A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks, Favre 9. Favre gets rid of it and Rodgers still holds onto it way too long.

Of course Rodgers has no protection, but if I had to pick a QB to start tomorrow it might be Favre over Rodgers!!!

Apparently we watched different games last night. Favre did very well with almost-unlimited time to throw. Rodgers did very well when pressured heavily all game.

 

[CalBear]

Edited after Vikings victory Monday night: But last night 75% of the Shark Pool would have been wrong. Despite differences in the surrounding cast favoring Favre, he just outplayed Rodgers. Both are very good QBs right now, but Favre's experience and rocket arm give the advantage RIGHT NOW. A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks, Favre 9. Favre gets rid of it and Rodgers still holds onto it way too long.

Of course Rodgers has no protection, but if I had to pick a QB to start tomorrow it might be Favre over Rodgers!!!

Apparently we watched different games last night. Favre did very well with almost-unlimited time to throw. Rodgers did very well when pressured heavily all game.

Favre also threw an interception in the end zone that was called back on a ridiculous PI call.

 

[MNTom]

Edited after Vikings victory Monday night: But last night 75% of the Shark Pool would have been wrong. Despite differences in the surrounding cast favoring Favre, he just outplayed Rodgers. Both are very good QBs right now, but Favre's experience and rocket arm give the advantage RIGHT NOW. A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks, Favre 9. Favre gets rid of it and Rodgers still holds onto it way too long.

Of course Rodgers has no protection, but if I had to pick a QB to start tomorrow it might be Favre over Rodgers!!!

Apparently we watched different games last night. Favre did very well with almost-unlimited time to throw. Rodgers did very well when pressured heavily all game.

Favre also threw an interception in the end zone that was called back on a ridiculous PI call.

On the same play, the Packers were also called for offsides but the Vikings declined that penalty and accepted the PI call (which should have been defensive holding).

 

[sinatravolta]

Edited after Vikings victory Monday night: But last night 75% of the Shark Pool would have been wrong. Despite differences in the surrounding cast favoring Favre, he just outplayed Rodgers. Both are very good QBs right now, but Favre's experience and rocket arm give the advantage RIGHT NOW. A key differentiator: Rodgers has 20 sacks, Favre 9. Favre gets rid of it and Rodgers still holds onto it way too long.

Of course Rodgers has no protection, but if I had to pick a QB to start tomorrow it might be Favre over Rodgers!!!

Apparently we watched different games last night. Favre did very well with almost-unlimited time to throw. Rodgers did very well when pressured heavily all game.

I thought Favre looked good last night. But honestly just about every starting QB in the NFL (definite exception for JaMarcus Russell) would have looked good with that much time to throw.

 

[trader jake]

Brett Favre was the man last night but at this point of their careers Aaron Rodgers is the better quarterback.

 

[Mr. Yuk]

I was impressed with Rodgers last night. Absolutely zero time to throw all night yet he made some great plays. Holding the ball too long is his biggest weakness but he'll improve on that.

Made me wish the Vikings would have grabbed him in '05, we whiffed twice before he was taken with Williamson and Erasmus James.

 

[ookook]

I think that if the Packers had Favre last night and the Vikings had Rodgers, Favre would have given the Packers a (slim) chance to win. With the roles reversed as per reality, Rodgers gave the Pack no chance to win.

Yes, Favre throws INTs under pressure when behind, but sometimes he makes silk out of the sow's ear in those situations too. St. Louis game is perfect example.

At least we are no arguing about differences between two very good or great QBs, rather than "Favre sucks and is washed up" like it was before.

But Rodgers also gets a lot of credit based on few accompishments.

The Pool is biased by Rodgers fantasy numbers...which does not necessarily equate to leading teams to victories.

With that said, I think Rodgers' missing ingredient is experience, which here we think means "old" when it should more often mean "accomplished".

 

[fatness]

The Pool is biased by Rodgers fantasy numbers...which does not necessarily equate to leading teams to victories.

One thing which leads to QB's leading teams to victories is flitting about like a delicate butterfly, unsure upon which flower to alight, until finding a team with a strong defense, strong running game, and strong offensive line. And landing there.

 

[urbanhack]

I think that if the Packers had Favre last night and the Vikings had Rodgers, Favre would have been knocked out of the game and the Vikings would have won by 30.

 

[Titus Pullo]

The Pool is biased by Rodgers fantasy numbers...which does not necessarily equate to leading teams to victories. With that said, I think Rodgers' missing ingredient is experience, which here we think means "old" when it should more often mean "accomplished".

Being a fantasy stud will make you popular around here. Over the past 20 games only Drew Brees has scored more fantasy points than Rodgers.

 

[Rushmore]

Rodgers has always taken too many sacks as a function of holding the ball too long. He average something like 1 sack every 7 attempts.

And Favre can make throws that Rodgers can't.

So as long as Brett is willing to play within the system and doesn't start throwing stupid stuff, he is probably better.

I saw several throws by Favre last night I suspect Rodgers would struggle with.

Decision-making is Favre's biggest problem. Lack of decision-making is Rodgers.

Not really sure what throws Rodgers can't make. He's got a better deep ball than Favre ever did, and his velocity is excellent. Rodgers isn't a seasoned veteran QB yet, and it shows up on the field.

Keep this in mind, when Favre was in his second year as a starter, he was 24 years old. He threw 19 TDs and 24 INTs. Rodgers is in his second year as a starter at 25 years old, and he's at 6 TDs with 1 INT on the season. At 24, Rodgers threw for 28 TDs with 13 INTs. Rodgers was sacked 34 times last year, a number very comparable to most of the years Favre played with the Packers. Obviously the sacks are way up for Rodgers this year, and some of them are most certainly his fault. I just don't buy that Rodgers is being too indecisive. I think he's watching too much Roethlisberger, and trying to wait for receivers to come open.

If Favre were playing for the Packers last night, he would have had one of his 4-5 INT games, and the Packers would have lost 41-14. Take it from someone who saw everyone of his years in GB.

 

[ookook]

You know, people still keep pushing that Rodgers is clearly already better than Favre and frankly I still don't see it.

Watched the game today and honestly could not say that Rodgers had given my Packers a better chance than Favre would have.

Right now, Favre looks more accurate than Rodgers, has better pocket presence, and takes many fewer sacks.

This may change as the season winds down and Father Time catches up with Methuselah, but right now I think it is WAY less clear cut than people were saying at the beginning of the season.

And before all the posts of "the teams are way different, and the Vikings have this, that, and the other thing, we all know that. I am trying to take that into account. I have seen pretty much every game either has played (the exception being a couple where I listened on the radio).

What I am saying is that it looks like Favre might give the Vikings a better chance than Rodgers would. And for the Packers, it looks like at worst a toss-up.

I know it is coming, so bring it.

 

[spider321]

I change my vote.

Favre pwns Rodgers.

Favre really PWNS Green Bay.