This point/counterpoint-style article from Kevin Seifert and Gene Wojciechowski over at ESPN.com deserves only the following response:
That is all.
Caretaker... You ignorant waste of semen. It baffles me that someone actually gives you a job on this business.
Please stick to your winless Vikings, and refrain from talking about the Packers ever again.
And to the other guy. When "objective measurables" to you are yards and touchdwons, I got nothing to say to you. That you could comprehend, at least.
Kudos, ESPN. Once again, you made me waste a good ammount of time of my life.
I didn't even give ESPN the satisfaction of 'clicking' on the story to enhance their web 'hit' count.
I know, but I couldn't be the better man. It was either read that or work...
These guys talk stats in terms of yardage numbers, TDs, INTs and all that mumbo jumbo. However they fail to mention the real stat and that's SBs. I certainly believe Rodgers has the potential to win more than the "'ol gunslinger" ever has.
Don't be surprised if Flynn is traded for a DB.
You're right. I won't be surprised. I'll be shocked.
Makes more sense next year, especially if his stock rises. Maybe he could have a Rodgers-like game a la Dallas 2007 that could earn him some trade value.
I hope not, because that would mean Rodgers is on the sidelines.
Would you really trust Graham Harrell as our backup QB? At this point, I'd keep Flynn and trade him in the offseason.
This would have irritated me a lot 2 years ago and a little last year. But I didn't see anything offensive. In fact, it was a little fluffy to the point I started skimming.
I responded to the article earlier saying Rodgers realistically only needs 2 SBs victories to overtake Favre. Easier said than done, but I think Rodgers has mental toughness that Favre doesn't in crunch time. Rodgers proved that to me by almost pulling off the one greatest comebacks in playoff history. He would have had refs not blown two calls on the final drive. Favre would have thrown at least 2 more picks and the game would have been a complete embarrassment if he would have had to face that kind of adversity.
I'll still defend Favre's playoff performances from 2001-04 mainly because he was a big reason they were there in the first place. But he's consistently made stupid decisions at critical moments in the playoffs you have to think he can't handle the pressure to the point he's hysterical. As much as I wanted to enjoy the saints INT at the end of the game, there was a part of me that felt bad for the guy because I had felt the same thing with him not long ago. And I know Rodgers doesn't have any hardware yet, but I just don't see those traits in him. I trust him a lot more in the playoffs than I ever would Favre.
I usually enjoy the NFC North Blog, and read the article before I saw Aaron's response. I thought the same thing he did, it's pointless drivel. If Rodgers wins two Superbowls then we can discuss it.
So, it doesn't matter what else Rodgers does, until he wins more than one Super Bowl, he's not better than Favre. Period. End of sentence. Super Bowls are the only measuring stick of a QB's worth.
So, Trent "Blind-Squirrel-Finds-A-Nut" Dilfer and Jim "Good-Thing-I-Have-A-Defense" McMahon are better than Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Dan Fouts? Huh. Good to know.
I don't see anyone saying Superbowls are the only important stat. Just the most important one.
I'm willing to bet that Marino, Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts et al would gladly trade a good chunk of their career passing yards or touchdowns for Dilfer's Superbowl victory.
"I’m willing to bet that Marino, Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts et al would gladly trade a good chunk of their career passing yards or touchdowns for Dilfer’s Superbowl victory."
Still doesn't mean that they were worse QBs than Dilfer or McMahon.
For me SBs aren't the entire story. It is however one of the most important things when you judge a QB. That is why I base my opinion on potential. Does Rodgers have the potential to lead a team to SB victory? Absolutely. Will he have more than Mr. You-Know-Who? Possibly. Is he a complete failure if he doesn't? Certainly not.
People were responding to Mean Gene's assertion that Rodgers would need to play 14 more seasons the catch Favre's Stats and consequently be a superior packer quarterback.
I'm saying no way. Rodgers doesn't have to play nearly as long if he plays at a higher level (particularly in the playoffs). He could play 8 more seasons as the packers QB and if he won 2 or more super bowls, he would be considered a superior packer QB than Brett Favre. Stats, duration, level of performance, and hardware are all important. Gene W. insinuated only the first two variables factored in.
I think the whole argument about whether Rodgers will ever meet or beat Favre's records is retarded. It seems more and more like people expect Rodgers to have crammed 20 years worth of career accomplishments into his 2 years as a starter. How about we let the kid play a few more years before speculating as to whether he can meet, beat or exceed Favre's records.
Agree. If the question is "who would you rather have as your starting QB right now?" I know my answer. But how can we compare two careers when one is 2 years old and the other started during the Nixon administration?
I think it's more than just retarded, it's complete BS!! They're two different people, two different QBs! That's why one's named Favre and the other Rodgers. Why can't people just face the facts and admit that they aren't one and the same. So what if they both played for the Green Bay Packers? If that's they're only excuse then why not compare Starr to Bratkowski, or Majkowski to Favre?
In all honesty, I'd be surprised if either of these guys *wanted* to do that story. Seifert writes a lot about Favre but he does so with a certain amount of derision that makes me believe that he's only doing it because he has to, much the same way Rachel Nichols has to sit outside Favre's house for half the summer. Nobody can enjoy that job.
I'm 90% sure that this piece was the concoction of an exec at ESPN and it definitely serves its purpose: It drives clicks because people to return to the site to make sure they're winning the flame war. Clicks drive up ad revenue which contributes to the bottom line. Look for at least one of these every year over at ESPN.
Kevin would never say so, but I suspect that is the case. Its all good. He told me he laughed when he saw this post...
I think we should just lock Rodgers and Favre in a room and have them rock-paper-scissors for best two out of three.
Then we'll know who's truly superior.
I just got ticked that they dissed Bart Starr. DO. NOT. DISS. BART. STARR!
All I have to say is Favre vs. Rodgers is Apples and Oranges. Seems these reporters forget all of the bad things Favre has done. I use to tell folks you love and hate what he does on the field. For as many wows, there are the WTF! But remember there is always an excuse when it comes to Favre, so if he does not play well this year it will be...he was too old, his ankle is bad, blah, blah, blah...
The question should be when this drama is finally over, who is the next in line to take his place...Haynesworthless? On.no.Romo?
But I am at the last stage, acceptance, he was a great QB for the Pack, he is no longer with our team. Rodgers is OUR guy now. Let them have fun with comparisons, we all know Favre sells, the NFL loves him, gets reporters to talk about him, great for TV ratings, because that is what the NFL has been turning into. Enjoy watching it for free now, because it will be pay-per-view, which has already starting to turn into that.
it will never be ppv league viewership would drop so fast u could watch the money dissapear. tv ratings is what keeps advertisements and that will be what drives the nfl. ever wonder why soccer never makes it here? there is no stop in action for commercials. seriously americans love all sports but only those with commercials because those are the cool ones and the sports that can usually last long enough to establish themselves
DGTALMN, this is just how the media plays itself out. They see that Favrewatch is officially over and need a new story to cook up. And that's why there's nothing better than reintroducing the good old Favre vs. Rodgers stuff.
Nice one Nagler! I didn't read the article, but then again I never read those talentless hacks articles.
What was strange is those two seemed to agree that Starr wasn't better than Favre. HUH? In their reasoning, which is talking pure stats, Starr is the absolute KING of postseason play... which is exactly what every journalist jerks it to when it comes to quarterbacks. So why don't they think Starr is any good? It's mind boggling.
Not a member yet? Join free.
If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you.
Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.