October 28, 2008
Holy Crap! Aaron Rodgers is better than Brett Favre!
While leading the Packers, Rodgers has amassed considerably strong numbers for a first year starter. Rodgers has a QB rating of 98.8, ranking him 7th overall. While Brett Favre's QB rating is a respectable 89.5, it ranks him only 13th overall. At almost 10 points higher that is quite a statistical advantage for the young pig skin chucker.
Favre has a slight advantage in touchdown passes at 15 vs Rodger's 12, but has a decidedly large disadvantage at interceptions, his trademark, having thrown for 11 vs Rodgers' paltry 4. Three times the interceptions in half a season speaks volumes to the disadvantage of Favre as your starting quarterback.
Statistics only give a small outline as to how the quarterbacks are playing, and should not be the sole reason to declare one quarterback better than the other. After watching both players lead, throw, and demonstrate their skill, it was easy to see why the Packers brass throught that Rodgers was they way to go this year. Rodgers has intangibles that stats can not explain. His throws have a greater percentage of cripsness. Yup, crispness. Only a true Packer fan can make this annalysis. After watching every game Favre played I can say that since 2000 I don't think I had seen him throw at the rate Rodgers has of complete lazer shots vs ducks. Yes, Yes, Favre had the rocket arm, but over the past few years you have to admit more and more ducks were let lose on the range and many of them resulted in INTs!
Rodgers obviously has more fluid movement in the pocket. When Favre was young he could run with the best of them. It was never beautiful, but he had a back yard feel that could juke a 4.3 speed linebacker out of his cup. Rodgers can do that and look like a gazelle at the same time. This has lead to fewer sacks and less chance of injury from huge pocket hits. Are you ready for a contradiction? It has also made watching Rodgers play more scary because it has increased his chance for injury. His shoulder injury was the result of a scramble. An injury to Rodgers immediately makes any point about him being better moot. Without him at quarterback Favre becomes an obvious choice because you know you'll have him every week. Rodgers has shown gritt thus far. Hopefully he doesn't have to show any more because he isn't nursing any injuries.
One last reason Rodgers is better than Favre is the lack of controversy we have in our quarterback. Every player knows that he likes them and feels like one of the guys. The coaching staff knows that he will do what they ask of him and will try his guts out. The fans know that football is the number one thing for him right now and that he'll be back next year and many years to come.
Time will tell whether Rodgers is better than Brett in the long run. Like I said, he must stay healthy and keep playing at the level he has seemed to do fairly consistanlty so far. You can never count out Favre either. He has played some great games this year along with his dreadful ones. He is facing his own adversity on and off the field. His Jets do have a winning record and this fan does hope they keep winning. I don't mind seeing Favre succeed at all, as long as Rodgers keeps looking better.
Discussion
21 Comments on "Holy Crap! Aaron Rodgers is better than Brett Favre!"
#1
Posted by JJ, October 28, 2008 6:15 PM
Just a few weeks ago Favre was ahead of Rodgers in all stats. Favre is in a whole new system which has been clearly evident with the miscommunications with Cotchery and Stuckey(leading to 3 of his ints). I have no doubts that the packers would have a better record now with Favre.
Favre > Rodgers
BF4L
#2
Posted by Jaymes Langrehr, October 28, 2008 6:39 PM
The Packers' early-season struggles weren't due to bad quarterback play -- they were due to injuries in the secondary and an inability to stop the run. Rodgers has fared exceptionally well considering his separated shoulder and Ryan Grant's disappearance during the three-game losing streak, and I don't think Favre would have fared differently if he was still in Green Bay. Despite any perceived magical powers by folks like ESPN, Favre wouldn't have been able to keep Al Harris' spleen from rupturing.
In the end, I think the two teams will finish in roughly the same spot -- 9-7/10-6 range, and a possible playoff berth.
I will say, though, that it's interesting to see the Jets' fan base already slowly turn against Favre and his barrage of interceptions. Meanwhile, most Packer fans couldn't be happier with Rodgers' performance in the first half.
#3
Posted by Troy, October 28, 2008 7:56 PM
Aaron, despire all of the expectations that have been going on has been very solid. And has play at a very efficient level. Where as Farve has been all over the map performing sub par against teams like Oakland and Kansas City.
Living in Aaron Rodgers hometown of Chico, Ca. I saw him at the Bar duing the Bye week. It was very funny, because nobody even noticed Aaron. He was sitting on the edge of a pool table in the middle of the bar where hundreds of people walked right past him to get to the bathroom. I guess he will need to do a little bit more to earn that Star power, lol.
#4
Posted by E-ROC, October 28, 2008 8:12 PM
Let's take into account that Brett Favre is in an entirely different system, with an entirely different talent level around him, and entirely different organization. Let's acknowledge all of these variables before we begin a comparison. Any knowledgeable football fan would notice these things.
#5
Posted by Casey Burkett, October 28, 2008 8:39 PM
I'm taking into account everything I've seen out of Favre the past few years and everything I've seen out of Rodgers through 1/2 of the season. I did use some of this year's stats to illustrate some points, but know that I am comparing Rodgers to Favre of late and not just Favre of this year.
It should also be known that I am a HUGE Favre fan and was 100% against moving him. What I've seen from Rodgers thus far looks more impressive than the Brett I saw over the past, at least, 5 years. That's not saying Brett was bad at all, I just think Rodgers looks very very good, and considering it's his first 7 games, barring injury, you can only assume he will get better.
I believe Favre led in stats due to one glorious game with 6 td throws. While he will have those moments, I am looking at his performance overall. He has been shaky and has been slinging it around. Yes, he is in a new system, but Rodgers has been in such great control you have to admit, he looks like a more mobile, patient, version of Favre himself.
I also admit, it is only 7 games and this could easily change. I never count out Favre and Rodgers could hit a wall and have a slip. We'll just have to see.
#6
Posted by ortforshort, October 29, 2008 12:11 AM
If you had to win a game this Sunday, who would you take?
#7
Posted by Mark, October 29, 2008 2:33 AM
As Bud Grant once said, "durability is more important than ability". The jury is out concerning Rodgers' durability.
#8
Posted by MJ Kasprzak, October 29, 2008 5:12 AM
Okay, first of all, darn you Casey for stealing my thunder! This is similar to the post I will have on Friday, but I like your title better!
Ort and E-roc do make good points, but I have answers to them that Casey did NOT cover...you'll just have to tune in.
However, I will offer two mitigated counterpoints: Favre may have been facing fewer eight-man fronts, and I would be interested to have that corroborated or refuted; and Mark is right in terms of whether Rodgers will last, but this does not actually change how good he is.
#9
Posted by robert ethan, October 29, 2008 7:29 AM
Crap.
Double crap to all you bandwagon refugees.
The Jets under Favre have already matched their wins from all of last season.
The Packers under Rodgers have pretty much matched their losses from all of last season.
Favre has more class in one of his chin whiskers than Mr. "1000%!!!!" Jay Glazer and all the other vermin back biters lining up to try to make a living off his back.
#10
Posted by robert ethan, October 29, 2008 7:40 AM
The only reason anyone not freezing to death out there on the tundra gives a rat's arse about the Packers these days is to check out the team that Brett Favre used to play for.
That will stop soon enough as he creates a new story in New York.
#11
Posted by billvv, October 29, 2008 1:56 PM
You still can't overlook the importance of continuity that Rodgers has an Favre does not. You could reasonably compare Pennington's move to Miami and Favre's move to the Jets, if you like. Same time to learn the game and so on. You'd still have to rule out coaching of both teams and team strengths and weaknesses. In the end, it's just your opinion.
#12
Posted by MJ Kasprzak, October 30, 2008 6:28 AM
Robert--yeah, the losses have nothing to do with how badly the defense was playing, and the Jets didn't add anyone but Favre to last season's roster. (I feel I better tell you that was sarcastic, since you obviously were only looking at the surface of things.)
#13
Posted by David Hannes, October 30, 2008 11:42 PM
1. The Packers' revamped their playbook for '08, so Favre would have been in somewhat of a new system in Green Bay as well.
2. Chad Pennington went from the Jets to the Dolphins...and, at one point, had a better quarterback rating than Favre.
Favre's slightly above average play stem from both a new system, as well as being an older quarterback past his prime.
I hope Favre does play better so that he doesn't go out a laughing stock.
#14
Posted by boe, October 31, 2008 10:34 PM
Brett Favre is also playing with a team that only won 4 games last year. Rodgers is playing with a team that has won 13. Not saying Rodgers is not good. Lets just not knock a QB who stat wise is the best QB in the NFL!! EVER!! Look it up press boy....
#15
Posted by MJ Kasprzak, November 1, 2008 10:10 PM
Boe: before attempting to demean Casey by calling me "press boy," you may wanted to read my article, in which I made reference to the strength of the supporting cast.
Also, the Jets are not the same team they were last year. They added a lineman and tight end who have been to the Pro Bowl and are nowhere near the end of their career. And there is no disputing that Favre had more to work with LAST YEAR, in his FIFTEENTH as a Packers starter, than Rodgers does this year, in his FIRST. Case closed.
But much as you are not saying Rodgers is not good, I am not saying Brett was not great. He was awesome! I don't agree he was the best ever (you can't make that many bad judgments at QB and be the best ever), but he was top three, and THE most impressive, most talented, and most exciting.
#16
Posted by Casey Burkett, November 2, 2008 4:19 PM
Press Boy? Hilarious! Look, I'm a huge Favre fan. I'm calling it as I've seen it the past few years vs what Rodgers has done so far. Also, many of last year's wins were on the defense. Press boy, wow, that is funny.
#17
Posted by MJ Kasprzak, November 3, 2008 12:42 AM
KC: if by funny, you mean lame, then yes, Boe is one of the funniest people alive!
#18
Posted by Paige, November 6, 2008 1:05 PM
Hi Uncle Casey. Brett Favre will have to retire soon. We all know he was great and never wanted to see him go. It's amazing we would have picked up a talent like Aaron Rogers so soon! Anyway my mom typed most of this except for what I am typing now.
#19
Posted by Matt Amonette, November 14, 2008 1:07 PM
Wow, the writer of this article sure looks stupid after Rodgers got demolished by the Vikes and Favre took care of the Patriots last night.
#20
Posted by MJ Kasprzak in reply to comment from Matt Amonette, November 15, 2008 10:10 AM
I would say that one who thinks one game changes everything looks more ignorant than someone who was going on the rest of the season. Especially since Rodgers is still a higher-rated passer (and MUCH better runner) than Favre this season.
#21
Posted by Jeff, November 25, 2008 11:43 PM
Somehow, this article manages to get funnier every week. It`ll be side-splitting hilarious come playoff time when Aaron Rodgers and his team of last year`s NFC finalists get to cheer on Favre from their homes.
Recent Posts
More packers Posts
Division Rivals
Regional Teams
Leave a comment