Who is better Aaron Rodgers or Brett Favre

[nyjunc]

6 minutes ago, New York Mick said:

Different eras, I'd love to watch Farve, Marino, O'Brien, Moon etc play now. 

Favre and Marino would be great in any era, Moon would be a great stat guy, O'Brien would be roasted on here if he played today the way he played in the 80s and 90s.  

[Irish Jet]

5 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Check out the QB who plays for the Patriots sometime.  And maybe some YouTube videos of the QB who played for the SF 49ers in the 1980's. 

Obviously I'm only going to judge the players I've seen.

I personally don't think Brady's at his level. He's obviously great and would be my second choice - But the only time he's ever really had to put a team entirely on his shoulders was 2005, where he did well but eventually fell apart at the stage Rodgers just conquered. Brady is far more often throwing to open WR's, getting YAC while Rodgers is just pure precision. He makes plays he has no right to make. Also think both Brady and Manning could get rattled when their protection wouldn't stand up where Rodgers can improvise at another level. 

This isn't to knock Brady - I just don't think I've ever seen anyone like Rodgers.

 

[TuscanyTile2]

3 hours ago, JiF said:

Brady was along for the ride for those first 3 SB wins.

Rodgers is literally 10x more talented than Brady.  Like, its not even close.  Brady is a stiff who throws the balls 5-7 yards all game long, he's a huge pussy and he and his team are proven cheaters.  

Aaron Rodgers does sh*t Brady could never dream of doing and doesnt cheat doing it. 

People weighing the SB's are being silly IMO.

It's like saying Eli Manning is/was better than Dan Marino because of rings. 

The ignorance shown on this board is very impressive!

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

Obviously I'm only going to judge the players I've seen.

I personally don't think Brady's at his level. He's obviously great and would be my second choice - But the only time he's ever really had to put a team entirely on his shoulders was 2005, where he did well but eventually fell apart at the stage Rodgers just conquered. Brady is far more often throwing to open WR's, getting YAC while Rodgers is just pure precision. He makes plays he has no right to make. Also think both Brady and Manning could get rattled when their protection wouldn't stand up where Rodgers can improvise at another level. 

This isn't to knock Brady - I just don't think I've ever seen anyone like Rodgers.

 

Brady's Ds have always been overrated and he has always been the main reason NE won.

 

In 2006 his main weapons were reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney w/ no run game and he led his O to 27 pts on the road in the AFC Championship game. I want to see any other QB get that far w/ those weapons.

[Larz]

6 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Brady's Ds have always been overrated and he has always been the main reason NE won.

 

In 2006 his main weapons were reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney w/ no run game and he led his O to 27 pts on the road in the AFC Championship game. I want to see any other QB get that far w/ those weapons.

there was a time art modell asked the press to find out what ernie adams did, why he was on the payroll

we still "don't know" lol.  

[Irish Jet]

Just now, nyjunc said:

Brady's Ds have always been overrated and he has always been the main reason NE won.

 

In 2006 his main weapons were reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney w/ no run game and he led his O to 27 pts on the road in the AFC Championship game. I want to see any other QB get that far w/ those weapons.

They went 11-5 with Matt Cassell so it's ridiculous to suggest he hasn't played on legitimately great teams. Of course he's been the main reason they've won - He's GREAT. I'm not disputing how good Tom Brady actually is - I just think Rodgers is better.

He was great in 2006 but his stats weren't fantastic (I blame the team for that, rather than him and obviously not judging him by todays inflated numbers) but I don't see how that takes away from what Rodgers just done, who just scored 34 points on the road to the #1 seed without his best WR. They're both fantastic, I just put Rodgers at another level - Just from watching both of them play.

 

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, Larz said:

there was a time art modell asked the press to find out what ernie adams did, why he was on the payroll

we still "don't know" lol.  

Ernie was around in cleveland and they failed, he was around the first 18 games in NE and they failed, game 19 is when Brady started and the rest is history.

[The Crusher]

3 hours ago, JiF said:

I've watched every single game of Football ever played! 

^^omnipotent

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Irish Jet said:

They went 11-5 with Matt Cassell so it's ridiculous to suggest he hasn't played on legitimately great teams. Of course he's been the main reason they've won - He's GREAT. I'm not disputing how good Tom Brady actually is - I just think Rodgers is better.

He was great in 2006 but his stats weren't fantastic (I blame the team for that, rather than him and obviously not judging him by todays inflated numbers) but I don't see how that takes away from what Rodgers just done, who just scored 34 points on the road to the #1 seed without his best WR. They're both fantastic, I just put Rodgers at another level - Just from watching both of them play.

 

Matt Cassell led the Chiefs to a division title 2 years later.  yes they were 10-5 w/ Cassell as starter in 2008 but they were UNDEFEATED a year earlier against a MUCH tougher schedule.

look at Pats vs. playoff bound teams in 2007 vs. 2008:

 

2007: 6-0, average margin in these 6 games was NE +20

2008: 2-4, average margin in these 6 games was NE -2

 

and NE w/ Cassell MISSED the playoffs while 1 win Miami from 2007 won the division in 2008.  Can we stop bringing up Cassell?

 

Rodgers is great he's just not Brady YET.  he has a chance to catch him but he has a long way to go.

 

Brady scored 27 on the road in a TITLE GAME w/ caldwell and gaffney, those guys were not only NOT #1s they probably weren't even #3 WRs.  he also led an O to 34 pts on the road in a title game at Pitt who had the #1 ranked defense in a much tougher building to win in.

[rangerous]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

ok so why did he still suck for most of the season?

 

we clearly have different definitions of running wild, under 4 YPC is not running wild. Know what he did in the first half? 10 carries, 39 yds. 3.9 YPC, his long rush was 7 yds.

 

the run game #s were skewed b/c we caught Seattle off guard w/ a few Tpny Richardson runs where he averaged almost 7 YPC on 5 cariies, unless you think that was sustainable there shouldn't be an issue w/ playcalling.  the issue was Favre's terrible decision making, we had to throw b/c we struggled running and weren't scoring.  Favre then threw us out of the game and out of the season.

 

Seneca Wallace led Seattle to THIRTEEN points.  2 of their 3 scoring drives started in NYJ territory- at our 40 and our 20.  we didn't get beat by Seneca Wallace, we got beat by Brett Favre.

favre had a bad arm and schitty did nothing to help him out. and you say favre sucked for the season , then how do you explain an 8-3 the record?  in your world favre had nothing to do with it.  and i guess you would have been much happier with chaddy at qb.  now dont get me wrong, i thought chaddy was the guy until he started getting injured and his arm went south but he would not have done better with that jet team than favre.

[nyjunc]

9 minutes ago, rangerous said:

favre had a bad arm and schitty did nothing to help him out. and you say favre sucked for the season , then how do you explain an 8-3 the record?  in your world favre had nothing to do with it.  and i guess you would have been much happier with chaddy at qb.  now dont get me wrong, i thought chaddy was the guy until he started getting injured and his arm went south but he would not have done better with that jet team than favre.

his arm was fine, it wasn't full strength but good enough to win w/ if he made better decisions rather than just throwing the ball up for grabs every week like he had done all year long.

 

the 8-3 record was built up against weak competition, he had 3-4 good games all year long.

 

Chad stays here and stays healthy we easily win the division.

[JohnJ]

4 hours ago, nyjunc said:

you may want to ask his family if he is more likeable.

I don't like them either. But thanks for the suggestion, that's swell of you

[New York Mick]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

Favre and Marino would be great in any era, Moon would be a great stat guy, O'Brien would be roasted on here if he played today the way he played in the 80s and 90s.  

I wanted to add a Jets QB lol

[nycdan]

For all of the certainty here around Brady/Montana = 1/2 and Rodgers is at best #3, take some time to peruse career statistics in meaningful areas.  Completion %, Int %, TD %, Yards/PA.  Rodgers is almost always ahead of both of them, in many cases by a wide margin.  If he didn't pass the 'eye test', you could say stats are misleading, but when you take them all in together, and figure in age and seasons remaining, Rodgers may very well retire with a commanding argument for GOAT.  It would help a lot if he wins the next two games he plays of course but the guy's talent is unparalleled.

 

 

[nyjunc]

what's funny is 2 months ago Rodgers was overrated and on the downside of his career and now 2 months later we are talking about him w/ Brady.  i think it's safe to say people overreacted 2 mos ago and are overreacting now.

[nycdan]

10 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

what's funny is 2 months ago Rodgers was overrated and on the downside of his career and now 2 months later we are talking about him w/ Brady.  i think it's safe to say people overreacted 2 mos ago and are overreacting now.

Right and wrong.  He should be talked about with Brady and Peyton.  This so-called horrible season:  4,428 yards, 40 TD (+4 rushing), 7 INT, 104.2 rating.  Where do I sign?

BTW, here is a completely meaningless but incredibly entertaining factoid:

"Rodgers could throw an interception in his next 72 passes, and still have a higher career passer rating than Tom Brady. This statistic includes playoff stats too, where Brady has of course excelled with four Super Bowl titles."

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, nycdan said:

Right and wrong.  He should be talked about with Brady and Peyton.  This so-called horrible season:  4,428 yards, 40 TD (+4 rushing), 7 INT, 104.2 rating.  Where do I sign?

 

he's better than Peyton, he's not better than Brady but he is in the same ballpark

[nyjunc]

35 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

I don't like them either. But thanks for the suggestion, that's swell of you

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/father-of-aaron-rodgers-opens-up-on-family-rift-fame-can-change-things/?linkId=33450518

 

[JohnJ]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/father-of-aaron-rodgers-opens-up-on-family-rift-fame-can-change-things/?linkId=33450518

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. What azz hole would put a family matter to the press at that point?

[nyjunc]

4 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. What azz hole would put a family matter to the press at that point?

I don't know but he's the one estranged from his family, it's not just his Dad.

[JohnJ]

Just now, nyjunc said:

I don't know but he's the one estranged from his family, it's not just his Dad.

I don't like him

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, JohnJ said:

I don't like him

ok.

[JohnJ]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

ok.

As a matter of fact I hate him

[chirorob]

5 hours ago, nyjunc said:

Favre didn't succeed here, he sabotaged a legitimate Super Bowl chance.  he did have a great one year in Minnesota though.

Which ended on him throwing an awful interception to send another team to the SB

[RutgersJetFan]

2 hours ago, Irish Jet said:

They went 11-5 with Matt Cassell so it's ridiculous to suggest he hasn't played on legitimately great teams. Of course he's been the main reason they've won - He's GREAT. I'm not disputing how good Tom Brady actually is - I just think Rodgers is better.

He was great in 2006 but his stats weren't fantastic (I blame the team for that, rather than him and obviously not judging him by todays inflated numbers) but I don't see how that takes away from what Rodgers just done, who just scored 34 points on the road to the #1 seed without his best WR. They're both fantastic, I just put Rodgers at another level - Just from watching both of them play.

 

The New England Patriots are 14-6 without Tom Brady. That's a win percentage of .7. Brady's career win percentage is .772. Thus, Tom Brady is responsible for only 7.2% of the Patriots wins since he became the starter. #math #numbers #texasinstruments

[nyjunc]

4 minutes ago, chirorob said:

Which ended on him throwing an awful interception to send another team to the SB

yep just like he threw an INT to send the Giants to the SB 2 years earlier.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, RutgersJetFan said:

The New England Patriots are 14-6 without Tom Brady. That's a win percentage of .7. Brady's career win percentage is .772. Thus, Tom Brady is responsible for only 7.2% of the Patriots wins since he became the starter. #math #numbers #texasinstruments

the Pats under BB are 18-19 w/o tom Brady, the bulk of that from the 10-5 run under Cassell, a year after they were 16-0.  if we lose 5 more games next year we'll go 0-16, that's how huge of a difference 5 games is AND they faced a MUCH easier sched in 2008 than 2007.

 

[chirorob]

2 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

yep just like he threw an INT to send the Giants to the SB 2 years earlier.

Once Holmrgren left, he no longer had a coach he felt he had to listen to, and kind of regressed into the gunslinger type.  

Totally a HOF, amazing QB, but I'd take Rogers.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, chirorob said:

Once Holmrgren left, he no longer had a coach he felt he had to listen to, and kind of regressed into the gunslinger type.  

Totally a HOF, amazing QB, but I'd take Rogers.

he's still great but there are different levels of greatness, he's not a guy I trust w/ my season on the line but I trust him to get me to the playoffs.

[TuscanyTile2]

54 minutes ago, nycdan said:

For all of the certainty here around Brady/Montana = 1/2 and Rodgers is at best #3, take some time to peruse career statistics in meaningful areas.  Completion %, Int %, TD %, Yards/PA.  Rodgers is almost always ahead of both of them, in many cases by a wide margin.  If he didn't pass the 'eye test', you could say stats are misleading, but when you take them all in together, and figure in age and seasons remaining, Rodgers may very well retire with a commanding argument for GOAT.  It would help a lot if he wins the next two games he plays of course but the guy's talent is unparalleled.

 

 

If I had my choice to take a "beginning-of-career" guy of those 3, it would be a coin toss between Brady and Montana (or possibly just Brady outright).  Rodgers is outstanding but he isn't in either of their class (certainly not yet and likely not ever).

[JohnJ]

6 minutes ago, chirorob said:

Once Holmrgren left, he no longer had a coach he felt he had to listen to, and kind of regressed into the gunslinger type.  

Totally a HOF, amazing QB, but I'd take Rogers.

Yes. It took everything Holmgren had to keep him on course. Could've won more. Hope Rodgers can get another and place himself up there with the best

[nyjunc]

7 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

If I had my choice to take a "beginning-of-career" guy of those 3, it would be a coin toss between Brady and Montana (or possibly just Brady outright).  Rodgers is outstanding but he isn't in either of their class (certainly not yet and likely not ever).

I think what separates Brady and Montana is durability.

[RutgersJetFan]

13 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

the Pats under BB are 18-19 w/o tom Brady, the bulk of that from the 10-5 run under Cassell, a year after they were 16-0.  if we lose 5 more games next year we'll go 0-16, that's how huge of a difference 5 games is AND they faced a MUCH easier sched in 2008 than 2007.

I don't care.

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I don't care.

I don't care if you care or not, I was just correcting your misinformation.

[RutgersJetFan]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I don't care if you care or not, I was just correcting your misinformation.

Yes you do. You care a lot. It's OK. I care about stuff too.