Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Who is better RIGHT NOW, Rodgers or Favre? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ookook
- Start date
Phlash
Footballguy
I still say Rodgers. His numbers are extremely similar to Favre's (almost the same TDs, only 2 more INTs, more yardage for Rodgers and higher YPA) except his O-line, defense, and running game are vastly inferior. His WRs are slightly better, but I think Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin are a pretty awesome #1, #2.
I'll give you first choice of which qb and I get to choose which team roster Minny or GB.
encaitar
Footballguy
Rodgers has been outstanding this year and who knows how unbelievable he would be if defenses single covered his receivers all day long. Favre has been great, but there have been wide open spaces in the secondary for him this year. Something he has never experienced before.
Rodgers: 249 of 380 (65.5%) for 3136 yards with 22 TDs and 5 INTs; 45 rushes for 247 yards and 3 TDs; 44 sacks and 3 fumbles lost
Favre: 248 of 358 (69.3%) for 2874 yards with 24 TDs and 3 INTs; 6 rushes for -3 yards and 0 TDs; 22 sacks and 1 fumble lost
Favre: 248 of 358 (69.3%) for 2874 yards with 24 TDs and 3 INTs; 6 rushes for -3 yards and 0 TDs; 22 sacks and 1 fumble lost
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Wrong Forum.
Of course, I meant in the NFL not fantasy football.I see Favre as better right now at:(a) making touch passes(b) putting the ball where either only the receveir can catch it or where the receiver can best run with it after catching it© moving within the pocket(d) throwing the ball awayI see Rodgers as better at:(a) running to get a first down
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
Farve is the MVP of the NFL right now, Manning a close 2nd.
I realize Favre is a legit MVP candidate, and Rodgers isn't...but thier numbers are fairly similar...and Favre has a significantly better O line and running game backing him up.
One game...Favre. The experiance matters.
One season...a tossup, but I'm leaning Rodgers.
Going forward even just a couple seasons (AND ASSUMING FAVRE KEEPS PLAYING)....it would still be Rodgers hands down.
The question asks who's better right now...I think it's a tossup.
One game...Favre. The experiance matters.
One season...a tossup, but I'm leaning Rodgers.
Going forward even just a couple seasons (AND ASSUMING FAVRE KEEPS PLAYING)....it would still be Rodgers hands down.
The question asks who's better right now...I think it's a tossup.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
You do know that Sidney Rice was an afterthought without Brett Favre, and with Favre, he has been tremendous, right? I say this because it seems like you are implying that Rice being a great number 1 is why Favre is doing so well, when in reality Favre is the main reason why Rice is doing so well.
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
You just can't get enough of this man love for Favre can you ookook?
What really matters for the Packers is they have 4 of their next 5 games outside in cold weather conditions.
Monday night at Lambeau vs BALT where the early forecast calls for something in the 20s and possible snow.
Dec 13th at CHI
Dec 20th at Pitt
Dec 27th vs SEA at Lambeau
Jan 3 at ARI
I'd much rather have Rodgers leading the Packers for the next month than Favre given that schedule.
What really matters for the Packers is they have 4 of their next 5 games outside in cold weather conditions.
Monday night at Lambeau vs BALT where the early forecast calls for something in the 20s and possible snow.
Dec 13th at CHI
Dec 20th at Pitt
Dec 27th vs SEA at Lambeau
Jan 3 at ARI
I'd much rather have Rodgers leading the Packers for the next month than Favre given that schedule.
packersfan
Footballguy
One guy is one of the strongest contenders for the MVP award (which would be a record fourth if he won it). The other is starting for a team that is in playoff contention but has fared poorly against teams with winning records all season long.
This isn't even a discussion in my opinion. Only Manning and Brees are having seasons comparable to Favre. He's by far the superior option over Rodgers. I like Rodgers but he has a long way to go before he wins one MVP award, much less be in contention for a record fourth for the second time in three seasons.
This isn't even a discussion in my opinion. Only Manning and Brees are having seasons comparable to Favre. He's by far the superior option over Rodgers. I like Rodgers but he has a long way to go before he wins one MVP award, much less be in contention for a record fourth for the second time in three seasons.
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
So you'd rather have him leading the Packers for the next month with 4 of the next 5 games outside in cold weather conditions?I agree that Favre is the better choice in a dome or good weather conditions. I just think he's no longer interested in playing when its cold out.
Phase of the Game
Footballguy
We know the Favre detractors like to remember the loss to the Giants in the NFC Championship but Favre played very well at Lambeau in the snow against Seattle to help the Packers to that game.
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
I'll take my chances with anyone playing at an MVP level as opposed to someone who isn't.
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
How about the Chicago game that same year where he was wretched in the cold? 17/32/153 with 2 picks including a pick 6. More importantly he just looked cold, disinterested and not able to function due to the weather. That held true in both the Giants game and the Bears game. The two coldest games of the year.
packersfan
Footballguy
The INT in OT was a horrible throw without a doubt but I think a lot of people are forgetting that Favre did throw 2 TDs in that game, including a 90 yarder to Driver on a day when the Packers could not run the ball for squat and Plaxico Burress was turning Al Harris into jelly. Favre was put into a situation where he had to make a lot of plays to win the game and ultimately he failed. I'm not sure there's any defense that is going to hold Adrian Peterson to 29 yards rushing in a playoff game barring injury. That alone will put Favre in a better position to succeed. He has not been good in cold-weather games in recent seasons (the win over Seattle in the 2007 playoffs being a strong exception) but he's never had the running game that he has now. Even on Green Bay's two Super Bowl teams, they didn't have anyone obviously near as good as Peterson. I think that fact plus a defense that looks like it's starting to find its groove will put him in a better position to succeed if he plays outdoors the rest of the way. We'll see. All I know is the guy is playing incredible football, the likes of which only two QBs in the league at the present time can come close to matching. And neither one of them is named Aaron Rodgers.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Don't forget about the loss to the Bears, when Rex Grossman showed him up as well.
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
First of all, I agree. Favre is playing at a near MVP level (I put Brees and Manning ahead of him at this point.) However, this has been his MO for years. He plays very well until the last quarter of the season. Whether that has been due to the years catching up to him, or the weather I am not sure. But the numbers have been startlingly different from weeks 1-12 and 13-playoffs. That's his past. We see if that comes true again this year.
Phase of the Game
Footballguy
I know....how dare a QB have a bad day in terrible conditions and it wasn't Grossman at QB for the Bears that day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phase of the Game
Footballguy
It is fun to watch the Favre detrators hang on to what little they have left. Favre's record in games when the temp is under 34 degrees is 43-6. (This is prior to last year, I'm not sure if he played a cold weather game with the Jets).
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
What's amazing to me is how difficult it is for a lot of Packer fans to just admit Favre's still pretty damn good and the Vikings are much better with him.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Very
If Al Harris has even a pretty good day, the Packers win that game. Him getting torched by Burress all day was the difference.
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
First of all, I have admitted Favre is still pretty damn good. Check 3 posts ago. I think the vast majority of Packer fans would agree.What I find amusing are the Vikings fans like Phase. For years they hated Favre and would be the first to point out his shortcomings. Now when I point out that Favre has a history of slumping late in each of the last 4 years (fact), I am holding on to "what little I have left." The reality is the Vikings have beaten two teams with a winning record. The Packers (7-4) and the Ravens (6-5). It will be interesting to see how they stack up against some of the best teams in the league. Arizona and Cincinnati are next and are legit competition (assuming Warner plays), but the real tests should come in the playoffs. Dallas, Philly, New Orleans.
Phase of the Game
Footballguy
I am not and have never been a Vikings fan and have never hated Favre. See, the season Favre is having is making his detractors delusional.sinatravolta
Footballguy
The playing at an MVP level argument is pretty silly. You can only win an MVP if you are on one of the best teams in the league. It's pretty amazing that Rodgers is putting up comparable stats to Favre despite having such a bad o-line. I am surprised and impressed by what Favre has been doing - but he is sitting back there with all the time in the world to throw and teams still seem to be focused on stopping the Viking's running game which seems almost absurd at this point given what Favre is doing with all that time to throw and defenses stacked at the line. Most NFL QBs look really good when they have a lot of time to throw. Last night Brees had all day to throw (not that he even needed it most of the time) and Brady didn't and we all saw the results. Does it mean Brees is all-of-a-sudden head-and-shoulders above Brady? No. It's a pretty close call between Rodgers and Favre. I think if I were the Packers with their o-line and all - I'd take Rodgers. He's taking a lot of sacks but Favre would probably be making more of his old throw-it-up-for-grabs plays and he'd have a lot more INTs. If I were the Vikes - well it's obviously working very well right now and they should be playing indoors throughout the playoffs so maybe I'd take Favre.As others have said the difference in the supporting cast is so much greater than among the QBs - you give me Rodgers and the Vikings vs. Favre and the Pack and the Vikes will still win.
packersfan
Footballguy
Chances are, if a team is one of the best in the league whoever they have playing at an MVP level is a pretty big reason why they're enjoying so much success. So nope, I don't think the argument is silly at all. Favre is having an outstanding season. His arrival is one of the primary reasons why the Vikings are 10-1. That's extremely strong evidence in my opinion that choosing him over any QB not named Brees or Manning (maybe Brady before last night) is a pretty good move to make.
sinatravolta
Footballguy
Bear in mind you are talking about a team that was 10-6 last year with one of the worst starting QBs in the league! (well - or actually 2 of the worst - Frerotte and Jackson) You then put in a very good QB and they're going to be really #######' good! MVP is almost always given to a QB. So saying "playing at an MVP level" is actually as much or more about what position you play and how good your team is than it is about how well you're playing. Put any good QB on Minn and they're in the MVP consideration for those very reasons. That doesn't mean they're playing better than a good QB on a poor/average team. Remember when they started the season 6-0 people were saying Orton should be in MVP consideration.
packersfan
Footballguy
The difference is that it's now Week 11 and there are only 3-4 players being talked about winning the award. Favre is one of them. Rodgers isn't. For me, that makes the decision a slam dunk in Favre's favor.
sinatravolta
Footballguy
Yeah - the supposed MVP consideration talk is:1a - Brees1b - Manning2 - Favrewhich not coincidentally matches being QB on the team with the best record in the league. If only one of the Saints or Colts go undefeated - I guarantee you that team's QB wins the MVP. If they both do - one of them will win in a close vote between the two or it will be a tie. If all the teams win 15 games - any of the 3 could win. Favre might win because it's viewed as more improbable. But what people should take into consideration is Favre has the best D of the 3 as well as the best running game. So I think Brees and Manning should be a decent amount ahead of Favre at this point because replace them with an average QB and I think their teams really drop a lot whereas replace Favre with an average QB and they drop off but not that much. If you can predict who will win MVP strictly by position and team record (and regardless of who the actual QB is) - it's not the most meaningful way to measure who is playing better. Football much more than basketball and baseball is a team sport where how a team does revolves around a lot more than just one player, even the QB.
Phlash
Footballguy
There are some WRs who are very good but can't produce without a good QB. Roddy White wishes he was as good as he currently is when he had Vick was throwing him the ball. Sidney Rice is very, very good but he is not the kind of #1 receiver who will produce without a good QB. Favre solves this issue for him.
packersfan
Footballguy
Football is also a sport where one player (namely the QB) can have a significant impact on how a team does. It's similar in my opinion to having a great point guard in basketball. If you have someone who touches the ball on every possession who makes good decisions the entire team benefits. Suddenly, players who weren't all that good before look good or great. And the entire team can feed off that. That's why every team wants a franchise QB. Once you find one, the rest of your job becomes much easier. To me, it's no coincidence that Manning, Brees and Favre are the top MVP candidates this season nor is it a coincidence their teams have the three best records in the league. I the fact that all three of them are playing at such a high level is the primary reason why (not the sole reason, mind you) their teams are doing so well. And if we're comparing players who play the same position - which is the purpose of this thread - give me the guy who is playing at an MVP level as opposed to the player he isn't. If you choose to pick differently, that's cool. I've explained the reasons why I would take Favre and why I consider him to be the easy pick in this debate. The only QBs I'd consider taking over Favre right now are Brees, Manning and Brady (and Brady lost a lot of his luster last night in my opinion though he's still obviously a terrific QB).
Favre is having a great season. So is Rodgers. All this MVP talk is meaningless as far as this thread goes. Favre is being considered for MVP because he plays on a much more talented team than Rodgers.
Phase of the Game
Footballguy
Favre is being considered for MVP because he is playing better than Rodgers this year. Rodgers is playing well but Favre is having one of his best if not the best season ever.Steelfan7 said:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Pretty sure most have admitted this.What is being said is that in the cold, many right now would rather have Rodgers.And his all time record in the cold is great...his recent record in the cold has not been (and yes, he had some cold games for the Jets...but no need to discuss really as they were after the injury, hard to say if it was the injury or the cold that got to him).
Sabertooth
Footballguy
:X
Man-love? Perhaps, but I would prefer "realist". But to be fair, I got beat up quite a bit here going into the season saying that Favre was going to be a huge asset for the Vikings. I posted the same survey then, and taking a look at all of the statistics thought he was still a very good quarterback. Over the hill, washed up, all that I got by the tractorload.
And a whole lot of selective statistics were thrown around (in the cold, in the dome, etc.).
What I saw was someone who led a team to be 13-3 the last time he played in a similar offense. Someone who in fact was moving into a better situation. And inRodgers, a QB who had taken THE SAME 13-3 TEAM, THE SAME O-LINE, THE SAME RB, AND THE SAME WRs and went 6-10. All Rodgers fault? No, of course not. But maybe the 13-3 was lots because of Favre. But how many playoff games has Rodgers won? (I know, not fair to compare).
What was wrong with some of the dour predictions?
Well, Rodgers puts up great FF numbers despite not yet being a great NFL QB. But that is a natural bias, this is a FF site.
A second and major component is Ageism. Younger is always better and older is worse. Except the number of pro-bowl, MVP, HoF QBs at that age makes comparisons meaningless.
Finally, the ESPN hype and indecision had generated a lot of hate that was clouded objective judgment.
But it is what it is. And what it is is playing about as well as anyone could have expected or hoped for and there is no reason to think history will look back unfavorably on his attempts to play in Minnesota, no matter how contrived one does or does not think they were.
So next year, if I were to choose a QB for the Packers, it would be Favre. Not out of loyalty, but because he knows the job better and has an arm that may be unequalled in the history of the NFL.
And a whole lot of selective statistics were thrown around (in the cold, in the dome, etc.).
What I saw was someone who led a team to be 13-3 the last time he played in a similar offense. Someone who in fact was moving into a better situation. And inRodgers, a QB who had taken THE SAME 13-3 TEAM, THE SAME O-LINE, THE SAME RB, AND THE SAME WRs and went 6-10. All Rodgers fault? No, of course not. But maybe the 13-3 was lots because of Favre. But how many playoff games has Rodgers won? (I know, not fair to compare).
What was wrong with some of the dour predictions?
Well, Rodgers puts up great FF numbers despite not yet being a great NFL QB. But that is a natural bias, this is a FF site.
A second and major component is Ageism. Younger is always better and older is worse. Except the number of pro-bowl, MVP, HoF QBs at that age makes comparisons meaningless.
Finally, the ESPN hype and indecision had generated a lot of hate that was clouded objective judgment.
But it is what it is. And what it is is playing about as well as anyone could have expected or hoped for and there is no reason to think history will look back unfavorably on his attempts to play in Minnesota, no matter how contrived one does or does not think they were.
So next year, if I were to choose a QB for the Packers, it would be Favre. Not out of loyalty, but because he knows the job better and has an arm that may be unequalled in the history of the NFL.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Is this in fantasy or if you had a team and you needed a QB for one game, but it is right now who would it be?Favre has a MUCH better supporting cast with a better OL, better RB and an equal receiving group. I am not sure if people realize how good Rice, Harvin and even Berrian is decent/solid. Obvioulsy Jennings and Driver are very good as well so I called it even (I could give the edge to GB for experience though)I think Rodgers is a better QB though by a small margin (and that is only because Favre is in a zone right now)
Last edited by a moderator:
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
I also agreed that Favre was going to be an asset to the Vikings. What I didn't realize was that he was going to play out of his mind good this year. I am positive that he would still be a GBP if he played like this in December and January of 2007/2008. The Packers soured on him not just for his offseason diva act. It was because he had been a major reason for playoff losses for roughly the last decade. Obviously he wasn't the only reason, but look further back to the early part of this decade. 1999 Packers don't make playoffs. Favre 23 TDs, 23 INTs.2000 Packers don't make playoffs. Favre 20 TDs, 16 INTs.2001 Packers lose in divisional rd vs STL. Favre throws 6 picks in the game.2002 Packers lose in Wild card game vs ATL. Favre does throw 1 TD and 2 picks. This one was mostly because the Packers lost both starting OTs.2003 Packers lose in divisional rd to Philly. infamous 4th and 26 game, but Favre throws a brutal game ending pick in OT.2004 Packers lose in Wild card game to Minny. Favre throws 4 picks.2005 Packers don't make playoffs. Favre throws 20 TDs and 29 INTs on the year.2006 Packers don't make playoffs. Favre throws 18 TDs and 18 INTs on the year.2007 Packers lose in conference championship game to NYG. Favre's throws a brutal pick to end the game. I think a lot of people have forgotten what happened before 2007. Maybe some of that blame goes on Sherman for not reigning him in. But once Holmgren left, there were a lot of seasons that were plagued by too many INTs, or season ending INTs. I am not Favre's biggest hater. I have defended him vigorously for a couple of those season ending losses. However, I do believe that a couple of those teams were good enough to go to the Superbowl. (2003 and 2007). Both of those season's ended on a brutal pick. We'll see how 2009 plays out.
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
Another interesting take on this would be something like this:
If you are the Vikings would you "trade" Favre for Rodgers right now?
I know it would never happen, but if the situation came up, what would you do? Trade the roll that Favre is on with this team for Rodgers who could put up similar numbers and still be around for quite some time. I would be interested to hear what the players on the Vikings would say. Most are in a "win now" mode so they would choose Favre, while fans may choose Rodgers so your team has a stable QB for quite some time.
Favre was the right fit for this group of players that the Vikings have. Rodgers is having a GREAT season and has put up numbers just as good as Favre. I don't think you can answer the question in a "vacuum," it would depend on the make up of your team - I know one thing - either way you win!
If you are the Vikings would you "trade" Favre for Rodgers right now?
I know it would never happen, but if the situation came up, what would you do? Trade the roll that Favre is on with this team for Rodgers who could put up similar numbers and still be around for quite some time. I would be interested to hear what the players on the Vikings would say. Most are in a "win now" mode so they would choose Favre, while fans may choose Rodgers so your team has a stable QB for quite some time.
Favre was the right fit for this group of players that the Vikings have. Rodgers is having a GREAT season and has put up numbers just as good as Favre. I don't think you can answer the question in a "vacuum," it would depend on the make up of your team - I know one thing - either way you win!
Titus Pullo
Footballguy
i want the vikings first and i'd take favre over rodgers to lead the team right now. i think rodgers is perfectly capable of posting similar numbers and wins but favre has the veteran experience and leadership that can make the rest of the team truly believe that they can win it all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice to see someone who gets it.Very
Phase of the Game
Footballguy
But blaming those two losses on Favre is laughable. Anyone that isn't biased against Favre knows that many factors took place in those two games that contributed to the losses.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll take my chances with anyone playing at an MVP level as opposed to someone who isn't.
I think Rodgers is playing at an MVP level. This is just a historic year at the QB position.
Rodgers is having an individual statistical year the equal of any year Favre (including his 3 MVP seasons) had in Green Bay. It may be the greatest individual statistical year any Packer QB has ever had.
This year, Rodgers is on pace for:
More passing yards than Favre ever threw for in GB (4561, Favre's best was 4413 in 1995)
More rushing yards than Favre ever rushed for in GB (359, Favre's best was 216 in 1993)
Higher yards per attempt than Favre ever threw for in GB (8.25, Favre's best was 7.77 in 2007)
Fewer INT's than Favre ever threw for in Green Bay (7.27, Favre's best was 13 in '92, '95, & '96)
Better TD to INT ratio than Favre ever had in GB (4.4, Favre's best was 3.0 in 1996)
36.36 TD's accounted for (Favre would top that only twice in his Packer career in '95 & '96)
65.5% completion percentage (Favre did better once in his Packer career by having 66.5% in 2007)
I'm not trying to diminish Favre's statistical accomplishments. He was incredible in the mid 90's and is again this year and was very good for other stretches of his career. However Rodgers is having a brilliant individual statistical year by any measure.
I think Rodgers is playing at an MVP level. This is just a historic year at the QB position.
Rodgers is having an individual statistical year the equal of any year Favre (including his 3 MVP seasons) had in Green Bay. It may be the greatest individual statistical year any Packer QB has ever had.
This year, Rodgers is on pace for:
More passing yards than Favre ever threw for in GB (4561, Favre's best was 4413 in 1995)
More rushing yards than Favre ever rushed for in GB (359, Favre's best was 216 in 1993)
Higher yards per attempt than Favre ever threw for in GB (8.25, Favre's best was 7.77 in 2007)
Fewer INT's than Favre ever threw for in Green Bay (7.27, Favre's best was 13 in '92, '95, & '96)
Better TD to INT ratio than Favre ever had in GB (4.4, Favre's best was 3.0 in 1996)
36.36 TD's accounted for (Favre would top that only twice in his Packer career in '95 & '96)
65.5% completion percentage (Favre did better once in his Packer career by having 66.5% in 2007)
I'm not trying to diminish Favre's statistical accomplishments. He was incredible in the mid 90's and is again this year and was very good for other stretches of his career. However Rodgers is having a brilliant individual statistical year by any measure.
Last edited by a moderator:
