Yes, this headline officially signifies that I have been working in finance for far too long...
I've had my differences with both Andy and Steve over at PackerGeeks, but I wholeheartedly embrace this War and Peace-like in length post by Andy where our intrepid Geek brother muses on the (not-so-far-fetched in my opinion) possibility that Aaron Rodgers might just run Mike McCarthy's offense better than Favre ran it last season. I'd also like to welcome him to the club, as I've been not-so-quietly intimating the same thing for quite some time.
Now, as Andy notes, this may sound like blasphemy, and no one is saying Rodgers will be anywhere near a better quarterback than Favre. But everyone seems to ignore the fact that Rodgers has been groomed by McCarthy for the last two years. Favre had 15 seasons worth of habits, both good and bad, that McCarthy had to contend with. In Rodgers, he has a virtually clean slate. (His one year with Sherman hopefully wiped from the memory bank..)
Now, I know there are those who are much less enthusiastic about Rodgers' chances at performing at a high level this season, Greg Bedard over at JSOnline chief among them. He, and they, like to point out that no first-time starter ever steps into the starting quarterback gig and produces at a high level right away. It's just too tough a transition at an incredibly demanding position on the football field. And there is much validity to that argument. However, I would counter that Rodgers is in a completely unprecedented position, having been a quarterback taken in the first round who has been given three years to sit and learn while a pretty impressive supporting cast has been built around him. The only other comparable situation I can think of in the modern era is Steve Young sitting behind Joe Montana. And that worked out pretty well... (And before the emails start flying, no, I don't think Rodgers is Young. Not yet.)