Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Who’s Better: Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers?

By Category

Who’s Better: Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers?

Who’s better at showing off their tail end in real, comfortable jeans? Brett Favre.

Who has a more unique touchdown celebration? Aaron Rodgers.

Who’s better at pouring his heart out to Greta Van Susteren? Brett Favre.

Who’s better at photo-bombing Captains' pictures? Aaron Rodgers.

But who’s the better quarterback?

Packers fans never shy away from debating the best quarterback in franchise history and with all due respect to Bart Starr, the discussion usually centers on Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre.

Rodgers supporters point to his pinpoint accuracy and his mental grasp of the game. The Favre faction points to his competitiveness and uncanny ability for the big play.

Frankly, being unable to decide between two quarterbacks who have led the Packers to greatness for the last 21 years is an issue most teams would love to be debating.

With Rodgers midway through his fifth season as a starter and Favre’s reign covering 16 seasons in Green Bay, the debate will likely remain unsettled for some time.

But by looking at both players at approximately the same ages provides some insight into the greatness of each quarterback.

Individual Statistics

Favre and Rodgers’ tenures in Green Bay from ages 25-29 produced quite impressive numbers. Keep in mind that Rodgers’ five-year span is incomplete as his fifth season is just nine games old.

Quarterback Favre Rodgers
Yards 20,273 19,420*
Average Completion Percentage 61.5% 65.9%*
Touchdowns 176 156*
Interceptions 79 42*
Wins-Losses** 57-23 47-24*

*Through 9 games of the 2012 season
**Regular season games as a starter

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Rodgers’ numbers will be superior in yards, completion percentage and interceptions, the difference in touchdown passes will be negligible, but the wins and losses will favor Favre.


Favre’s three consecutive Most Valuable Player awards dwarf Rodgers’ single award, but Rodgers has one MVP title that Favre never earned: the Super Bowl MVP.

Speaking of Super Bowls, while Favre appeared in two championship games, both players possess a single title.

The argument can be made that the sky is the limit for Rodgers’ chances of future Super Bowl titles, but the same argument was made for a young Brett Favre in his prime.

Others’ Opinions

Both players take a different approach to the game. Rodgers is known for his composure and coolness in the huddle while Favre wore his emotions on his sleeve.

Those who played alongside, coached and reported on both Rodgers and Favre best sum up each player’s style.

Two receivers who have caught passes from both chimed in on the debate last season.

Packers wide receiver Donald Driver, the team’s all-time leader in receptions and receiving yards, who played his entire 14-year career catching passes from only two quarterbacks gave the nod to his current teammate.

"I've played with two quarterbacks," Driver said. "One just went out there and did what he did, and he wasn't patient at all. But Aaron takes what the defense gives him, and that's the type of guy you want."

Greg Jennings, whose receiving career has also spanned both quarterbacks, joined Driver in endorsing Rodgers.

They both bring different things to the table, but honestly right now I definitely have to go with . . . Aaron, his body of work at such a young age, his attention to detail, his discipline, I think it’s really second to none — it’s un-paralleled.”

On the defensive side of the ball, lineman Vonnie Holiday played alongside Favre in Green Bay and has faced Rodgers on an opposing team. Without declaring a better quarterback, Holiday aptly pointed out the strengths of both men.

"4 was a gamer, just a tremendous competitor," said Holliday. "Unorthodox. Sling the ball. Run out of a tackle.

"12 is a student of the game. He sees coverages. You try to disguise and hide things, but he finds the openings. If there's a guy uncovered, he's going to find him."

Packers head coach Mike McCarthy was also diplomatic with his assessment.

McCarthy coached Favre in 2006 and 2007 and helped Favre put together one of his better seasons as a 38-year old quarterback. He also oversaw Rodgers’ best year when the fourth-year quarterback won the MVP at 28 years old.

"You take Brett Favre and freeze frame him from the waist up and you take this guy here (Rodgers) and freeze frame him from the waist up and you'll see two of the purest throwing motions you'll ever see,” McCarthy said. “Brett Favre is extremely fundamental with shoulder rotation, point of release, big hands, long arms, elbow pointing to the target, all the things I look for. Aaron Rodgers is no different."

Tom Silverstein, who covered both Rodgers and Favre as a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, declined to choose who's better until later in Rodgers’ career.

“…[F]or all those people who think Favre never played at the same level Rodgers has, it's time to put aside your prejudices and judge this question in an objective manner,” Silverstein wrote. “Enjoy how well Rodgers is playing and imagine the greatness he can achieve if he keeps playing this well.”

Silverstein finished his article with a reminder of both players’ greatnesses.

“For now, don’t forget how great Favre was. He played just as well as Rodgers is playing now.”


Brett Favre was a remarkable quarterback who played a key role in putting the "title" back in Titletown.

Already in his short career, Aaron Rodgers has maintained the Packers prominence but still has a future to write.

Where Rodgers ends up in the annals of Packers history remains to be seen, but so far he’s as good as Brett Favre. Until Rodgers’ career comes to a close, however, the debate will remain open.


Max Ginsberg is a regular contributor at CheeseheadTV, blogs at and can be reached via Twitter @MaxGinsberg or at maxginsberg[at]



  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (55) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

razor's picture

Bart Starr & Aaron Rodgers

Tons of statistics don't matter.

Championships and character matter.

Tommyboy's picture

Max woke up today looking to watch a good fight. :)

maxginsberg's picture

I was tired of reading and writing about all of the injuries...and I do enjoy the comment section of posts like these. :)

Derek in CO's picture

ARod is better. He completes passes at a better rate, turns it over way less, and most of all, is a better person and leader.

bryce's picture


Evan's picture

What's maddening is, looking at the 2009 Vikings Favre, for as great as he was, he could have been SO MUCH better.

Bearmeat's picture

I don't care. I was glad to have Favre starting for my favorite team for most of his career. And I am glad to have Rodgers now.

Favre was great. Rodgers is great. We are lucky.

THEMichaelRose's picture

This is the correct response, in general.

I think if I were going into a big game tomorrow, and you told me that I could have Rodgers or Favre at his best, or even at 90% of his best...I'd take Rodgers, just knowing that I have relatively more protection from turnovers.

Wiscokid's picture

Bearmeat, I couldn't agree with you more. We have been truly blessed that we have and had a couple of the best quarterbacks to have played the game wearing green and gold.

Lou's picture

Favre is without a doubt the best football player to play the quarterback position in the NFL, maybe the toughest player at any position in history. Joe Montana is the best QB ever to date, Aaron Rodgers has a chance to surpass him.

denniseckersley's picture

The problem with Brett Favre never winning a Super Bowl MVP is that he earned the award, but it wasn't given to him. Favre was awesome in that game, with 2TD, 0INT, and a gritty rushing TD. I know desmond howard had the play of the game, and gave GB a huge edge in field position, but considering how much weight they generally award the QB, I'm still flabbergasted that he didn't get the Super Bowl MVP.

Peyton Manning won the award with a pretty poor performace: 1 TD, 1 INT, and 6.5 YPA..........when Dominic Rhodes rushed for over 100 yards and a touchdown. And Kelvin Hayden took the game over with his INT TD.

To this day, I don't understand how Peyton has a superbowl MVP and Favre doesn't, given the games that each of them played.

Ron Glick's picture

If you look at just the stats, then it looks like he had a good game. 246 yards, 2 tds, and a 107.9 rating. The reality is that if you watched the game, he didn't play that well.

The 2 tds accounted for 135 yards of the 246. Take away those 2 plays and his rating was 60.6. That is about right for how the game felt. 2 big plays along with mediocre play outside of Desmond Howard's returns. Desmond Howard definitely deserved the MVP because he saved that game.

The fact is that Favre played in two SBs where his team was +10 pt favorites in each one and needed an MVP performance from a kick returned to win even one of them.

Paul's picture

The Broncos should have been favored in the second Super Bowl. They were the better team all year and the better team in the Super Bowl. Cherry picking which stats "don't count" could be done to every QB in every game, so it is nonsense. I was at that 1st super bowl game and Favre's play was not mediocre.

packeraaron's picture

That's absurd. The Broncos snuck in as a wild-card team. The Packers went 13-3 and were Central Division champs. The Broncos were nowhere near "the better team all year."

Stormin's picture

Wolf,Farve,Holmgren and White saved this great frachise. For those of you that think Farve didn't have character ask all the charities and good will he did.

Pack12's picture

To automatically exclude Bart Starr is a joke. Until someone leads the Packers to five championships the greatest QB in Packer history is Bart Starr.

Colleen's picture

I love your writing, Max, but this is my response...written long ago.

maxginsberg's picture

An excellent article. I remember reading it a while back.

Colleen's picture

Thanks. I just didn't feel like retyping it as a response. Yours was still a good read. I don't mean to disparage it. :)

Point Packer's picture

#12 wins another Superbowl and the debate is over.

packsmack25's picture

Click-bait Monday!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

packsmack25's picture

Not a knock on you Max, just hate BF stuff. Wish we could all wait about 5 years before we bring that name up again.

Rocky70's picture

How is this even remotely relevant to season 2012?? --- This is barely a worthy subject for the offseason.

Oh, that's right. I forgot about the 'hits thing'.

Sam's picture

How good would Favre have been had Holmgren not left for Seattle? Holmgren was really the only coach that could settle #4 down and keep him focused. Had Favre been coached by Holmgren another 4 or 5 years this may not even have been a debate until Rodgers logged more years similar to 2010 and 2011.

T's picture

Favre was exactly what the Packers needed during his time, and Rodgers is exactly what the Packers need currently.

Favre had some of the best defenses in football to carry his play (good and bad). That is the single biggest difference in wins.

Rodgers carries more of the team, on his shoulders, then Favre had to in the past, thus he can't take any of the same chances afforded to Brett.

Paul's picture

Sorry, this is just plain false. Favre had a 3 year run with a very good defense. The other 13 were pretty much garbage, so overall he had to carry most of the burden. Rodgers has, so far, had less burden than Rodgers typically had, unless you think guys like Bill Schroeder were pro bowl type receivers for #4.

toolkien's picture

Pretty much garbage?

Here are some facts for you from 1992-2007, ranks versus the rest of the NFL (most are STAT/GAME as teams came and went as one may recall, so not the same number of games for all teams) in ALL games, regular and post-season combined-

W/L - #1
PPG For - #1
PPG Agnst - #8
PPG Margin - #1
YPG-O - #3
YPG-D - #6
YPG-Margin - #3
YPP (yards per play)-O - #6
YPP-D - #7
YPP-Margin - #1 (yes #1 even tho 6&7)
TO-O - #23
TO-D - #9
TO-Margin - #18

Average of all ranks? - #2.


Took data, cut and paste into excel so as to be able to calc the per game stats. There's nothing esoteric or tricky here, just points, yards (game and per play), and turnovers per game.

So if you are operating under some illusion about "garbage" then you are NOT a Packer fan. You are a FAVRE fan. There is simply no room to run down the best team W/L-wise, or 2nd overall potency-wise, just to make Favre out more than he was. There was plenty of surrounding talent, at least as compared to the REAL COMPETITION and not some idealistic desire to see the 80's 49ers.

I assume you noted the only "garbage" stat was GIVEAWAYS (and then the contributing damage to the turnover MARGIN stat), and on that count Mr. Favre was front and center.

119th (move to the top of the 98's) out of 169 in INT% adjusted for era (for all QB's w/ > 1,500 attempts from 1920-2011). There is your "garbage" link in the Packer chain for the 16 years. And that tendency was pushed beyond tolerance come the playoffs (unless of course it was '96 when Favre averaged just 2/3rds the attempts per game than any other playoff helmed).

Some people simply had no idea what they were looking at, apparently, and sustained themselves on hype and slo-mo montages before nationally televised games of The Great One. And when the Packers didn't manage to be one of the best teams of the modern era again (like '96 - #1 on O and D in points, the only team in 40 years to do so - since the '72 Dolphins), and Favre was lofted up onto a pedestal much too high than he deserved, people then - without review - simply began to run down the rest of the team. The time for that is over. Yes, there were SEASONS where the team was worse off on an area here or there, but the averages speak for themselves. ALL TEAMS had had their ups and downs, and the Packers were the 2nd most potent team overall, and parlayed that into the best W/L. The unfortunate reality is in those "single elimination" games, Favre's ability to turn the ball over was even GREATER.

And does that take away Favre's upside, or his durability, or his longevity? No. He's a HOF QB. But he interpolates somewhere in between the Dan Fouts/Jim Kelly region, not on some puffy cloud two layers above mere mortals as people need/needed to portray. He had upside, but he had a clear and present downside which was a chronic issue, especially for a Walshian WCO team that dinked and dunked to protect the ball, and Favre STILL turned it over at a well above average pace. And somehow people needed to gloss over that fact and blame everybody else.

As things stand, the Packers have moved up from a Jim Kelly caliber QB to a Steve Young caliber QB. Both are/will be HOFers and that's jim dandy by me. But I am TIRED of people running down the team from '92-'07 to maintain the wrong narrative.

Josh K's picture

No love for Ronnie McAda?

mo's picture

I love both Favre and Rogers equally. however, i feel the stats that are used are somewhat biased as they take Favre best years vs. Rogers first 4 and bit years playing. if we look at Favre first 5 years as a starter in Green Bay he threw for 147 tds which Rogers has already smashed. on the flip side Rogers had three years to sit and mature which Favre didnt.

Ronster's picture

His name is Rodgers, a fan should know that.

razor's picture

Whoops - Favre had two years in Atlanta to party and goof off! If it wasn't for Ron Wolf and Mike Holmgren who knows what might have happened to Favre. He owes them a lot. The team and the fans owe him nothing.

pooch's picture

Brett always had the better all around team,defense,o-line ,running backs,def backfield,special teams,Rodgers may have edge on recievers but not tight ends.This argument will not end ubtil Rodgers retires and we see what kind of ambassador he is for Green Bay

Paul's picture

Brett played on a lot of bad teams, with horrible o-lines, d-backs, and special teams. Rogers has clearly had the benefit of the more talented team to play on. It is not even remotely close. You must be thinking of the couple years with Reggie White, not the years with Bill Schroeder at WR.

pooch's picture

your nuts,or maybe just stupid

mike's picture

rodgers is a better teammate.

BringTheWood's picture

Both great teammates. In 16 seasons, show me how Favre was not a good teammate. Played hurt, played with passion, it was obvious his teammates loved him.

T's picture

Favre's best teammate? Vicodin.

BringTheWood's picture

I think Rogers is the better QB. But I've seen basically all of the games since the mid 1970's so I know what Favre did for the franchise. He is the reason RW came to GB. Without him there is no LF renovation and we are not in the top 10 in rev every year.

With Favre every win was magical and every defeat was crushing. It was the most exciting 3 hours of the week EVERY week.

Give me Favre at 25.

CSS's picture

Favre did do a lot for the franchise, but the franchise, Holmgren and Wolf did just as much for Favre. He was partying his way out of the league showing up for practice hung-over in Atlanta. Favre needed the Packers as much as they needed him.

Also, I'm sure Reggie White factored Favre and an ascending franchise into his decision making but don't kid yourself, Wolf making him the highest paid player in NFL history at the time did more than anything.

BringTheWood's picture

White was going to be the highest paid player no matter who signed him. He was making the tour of NFL teams and basically had his choice. He came to GB because of what they had in place and he specifically mentioned the quarterback.


They can't be separated and they saved this franchise.

CSS's picture

I make no attempt to separate them, but fans tend to choose the most romantic narrative possible in revisiting history, especially history that involves the victors. Reggie can reference following god, joining a ready-built champion level roster all he wants. At the end of the day Green Bay was the highest bidder. Money matters, he followed the money. Sure he factored everything else in as well, but at the end of the day, $$$$.

packeraaron's picture

Totally agree BTW.

Ron Glick's picture

Wolf did not come to GB because of Favre. He traded for Favre after coming here.

I don't agree that the LF renovation never would have taken place. Wolf would have managed to find a QB and still win. Maybe not quite as much but still enough to renovate LF.

They had the best defense in the league when they won the SB. They could have won a SB with a decent QB.

CSS's picture

I believe Ron Wolf drafted Mark Brunell in 93' who went on to play at a pro bowl level at QB with Jacksonville during the years Green Bay went to Super Bowls under Holmgren/Wolf.

Not taking a position on any debate, but quite plausible they win in those two years (but not sustained winning/drama) with Brunell in place.

BringTheWood's picture

I meant White not Wolf. Reggie said he came to GB because "we have a quarterback" which kind of shocked me at the time because Philly had a Pro Bowl QB in Cunningham

In 2000 the renovation passed by a 53% to 47% vote. I contend that narrow victory wouldn't have happened without the popularity of Favre and success on the field. Of course that is debatable, just throwing out my opinion.

Chad M's picture

People...people. Sigh. Favre played in a time when defenses could hit receivers, pummell QB's, etc. Starr played when the pass was secondary to the run in GB and the league. Rodgers plays in the Era of Offense. Starr was the best during his time in managing the game and winning. Favre was the Iron Man of football, the Gunslinger. The guy we ALL loved while he was here for his ridiculous love of the game and playmaking. Rodgers is the the Thinking Man's QB. He does want to be the best...he throws it away vs. into quadruple coverage. He is Montana with a stronger arm...Favre with self-control. Starr with a stronger arm in a different era. Rodgers may not beat Favre in statistics, but he is the best QB we've had. Favre was the best gunslinger the league has ever seen. Starr? The best of a different generation. Regardless, we've been very lucky in Green should be thankful for that versus resentful that one of them left to play for the Vikings. After all, it's not like he went to the Bears.

razor's picture

Starr and Rodgers are winners. Favre was an entertainer. I prefer winners.

BringTheWood's picture

Entertainer yes, with the most wins in NFL history. Boy was he fun to watch.

I never saw Starr play, but I probably rank him 1, then Rodgers, then Favre. We're lucky we can have this discussion.

toolkien's picture

Favre played all they way to 2009, so let's not make out like he played in some sort of era of head slaps and clothes lining. There were more and more rules put in protecting the QB over the 90's and 00's, sliding, no hits to the head etc. People make out like Favre started out in the 1970's where 13 TD's and 20 INT's was elite. There is no doubt that what we have RIGHT NOW, after the Brady Rule and Defenseless receiver has turned the NFL into human pinball, but there were already QB sheltering rules installed a decade and half or more ago.

marcopo's picture

None of this debate matters. Most of the opinions expressed above are all valid arguments. The shame of Brett, however, was the taint he left in the years he spent hating Thompson. Let's face it, Sherman ruined Favre from the standpoint of permitting him to be a prima dona. Fortunately, we've forgotten most of the drama of those days. Nevertheless, that and cell phones have polarized fans universally. Favre could have made a better case had he had the foggiest idea what "grace" means. As he himself has said, it was his legacy to do with what he pleased. Unfortunately, the first thing future fans will think of his the negative stuff, not his football accomplishments.

CoachSilva79.GBfan's picture

I am speaking as a fan of the game, not as a packer fan. I believe Mike Mcarthy, Jennings and Driver favor Rodgers over Favre for the simple fact that they won a super bowl together. As for the guys I just named above, they have no appreciation for Favre and what he has done for their careers. I believe the majority of the packer family along with some of the fans have insist that Favre's a bad guy when really it was between 2 men, Ted thompson and Brett Favre. So why is Brett Favre a bad guy? Ok, he had trouble making up his mind when it came to retirement. Hey people are entitled to do so and do so in reality today. Another reason packer backers are upset with Favre is because he joined the Vikings. Right? The guy wanted to play football! Remember Ted Thompson wanted to pay Favre 10million dollars to stay retired, remember that! The packer organization wanted to move on with Rodgers because they felt he was the best qb for the job, ok! If that's the case, why didn't they grant Brett his release or for that matter trade him to a team of his liking? If the packers felt Rodgers was the better decision why not do Favre right and return the favor, like he did for you for 16 years. If this situation was handled properly, the outcome would have been better for both the packer organization and the Favre family. As for the comparisons between Rodgers & Favre, they need to stop. Brett Favre is hands down the greatest Packer ever, GM Ron Wolf said this in early 2012. Statistically trying to compare the 2 is arrogance. The 2 qbs played in their primes in different era's. In the 90's they didn't treat qbs like babys, also the league allowed defenses to be physical with receivers, and it's a fact that defenses in the 90s were better tacklers along with top notch defensive backs. Rodgers is great, but I believe the league altering and rule changes on defense have helped not only Rodgers, but many other qbs in the NFL as well. the league today lacks cover corners. In the 90s you find them every where, and most of them are in the hall of fame today! Favre's consecutive three time MVPs speaks for itself. He was the dominant player for the three seasons consecutively at a time when defenses in the league were nothing nice. I would rather have those than a super bowl MVP any day. To compare these 2 statistically is dumb, the only stat That's important is the W's and Favre is number one on that all-time list. The ironman streak speaks for itself and the toughness Favre show cased. In my opinion Favre had the last laugh. After Ted had basically said we are trading you, we don't need you anymore. He came back and not only beat the packers 1 time, but twice. The fact that the packers returned the favor the following season didn't matter, because in the end Favre came in with the Vikings and beat the packers convincingly with Rodgers as their man. In my opinion I'm just going to say Rodgers is doing his thing and is the man in his era. Favre was the same case in his era. But if I had to pick it would be Favre, because without Favre the packers were irrelevant, and we wouldn't be talking about aaron Rodgers either.

toolkien's picture

Statistics come in two forms - gross and percentage. From a gross stand point, Favre has the most potency of any NFL player. Based on a pro-rated basis, his potency per season is about 85th out of roughly 13,000 NFL players ever. He is about the 16th/17th best QB based on potency/game. In the short time Rodgers has played, his potency/game is little higher, but over a much smaller run. And where it counts the most they both at 1 each (championships).

A comparison of the "tenderloin" of their careers, 25-28 (as it is for just about every player).

ANY/A+ is the adjusted net yards per attempt which combines yards/attempt with the elements of the QB rating along with a factor for sacks. Over Rodgers first four years, he's been 24% better than his peers while Favre, from his 25-28 year old years was 20% better than his peers. Rodgers #4 and Favre #7 all time for QB's with > 1000 attempts over those four years of their careers. Pretty much the same for comparison (i.e. one isn't so superior to the other). Different teams built differently for different eras. Plenty of credit to go to GM's, and HC's, and teammates for both. Neither did anything by themselves.

But, as I went on at length above, for his entire career, Favre was in the mid-teens for all QB's ever. Simply too many INT's, especially in the playoffs. Still a HOF career, but mostly due to "run" more than "rise" - too many INT's that drug down his career rating. But in his "fat years" he was one of the best ever. But somehow that was parlayed by the league and so many fans into being the Michael Jordan of football, which is ridiculous (I MIGHT be talked into being the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of football however). There's no slam inherent in saying Favre falls somewhere between Fouts on the high end and Kelly on the low end as far as overall potency. Favre just did it longer, which has some cache, but only so much. Would he have been that much more well regarded if he'd played for 5 more years, piling up regular season stats only to poop out about the 14th game of the season?

Favre was an important part of the Packers rise to success, but he wasn't the only part, or even the most essential part. As people have already noted, the Packers had Brunell in the chamber behind Favre, and if he had taken over, I think there's a good chance for a SB, if not two. But I don't think either Favre or Brunell would have won one during that era without White. And for the Packers second window of opportunity (2001-2004) they had Matt Hasselbeck who was in the hopper at one point. An interesting bit of trivia, since 1991, there have been only 9 QB's to have had the privilege of making 4,500+ attempts, and three of those are Favre (of course with over 10,000), Brunell, and Hasselbeck. Even the runt of the litter, Aaron Brooks didn't do too badly for himself with almost 3,000 attempts. And now there is Rodgers for the mothership. All testament to GM'ing/scouting and coaching.

And while I have been front and center bashing Favre for his deportment the last three years with the Packers and the three years after, let's not make those comparisons until Rodgers' career is over. If Rodgers spends three years acting above the team and spends three years trying exact revenge, then he will suffer the same fate as Favre regardless of how superior he ends up being. And we won't know that until he's soaking up rays in CA for a living.

CoachSilva79.GBfan's picture

I understand what your saying, however I disagree with you on what you said about hasselbeck, brunell and Brooks could have done the same Favre did by winning a super bowl or 2. If that was the case Favre would have been the one traded or released. There were many times when Favre was in holmgren's dog house for his bad habits. But their is a reason why Favre always found himself starting and never benched in favor of one of those guys you mentioned. That reason is because holmgren himself didn't have the confidence in either of those guys. Favre was not the only piece I agree, Ron wolf and holmgren were also parts. But Favre is the one that played on the field, not Ron nor Mike. So I give Favre the nod for making the packers relevant. If you know your football the packers were going no where and had nothing going for them before Favre. Who is Don Mackowski? So you must have been watching some other kind of football. The only guy that did well out of Brunell, Brooks, hassellbeck is hassellbeck. Because he did make it to the super bowl. The others were good for a short time and disappeared all of a sudden. The stats you just put up mend nothing to me once again because the game is made easier for offenses in this decade. Rodgers would not be as good facing guys like Deion, Darrel green, rod Woodson, Eric Allen, Chris dishman, aneas Williams .... Do I need to go on? Gee I don't know why people continue to argue when it's in black and white, easy to see It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. 2 different era's which the 2 were clearly the best at what they do. Also I believe Rodgers wouldn't last long if he played in the 90s. He is not tough and is not very good when he has people in his face. He is mobile but scared. Rodgers has a hard time with the niners and their defense, while Favre owned the niners and plays his best against the top defenses. Favre is point blank the reason packers are what they are, Ron wolf would tell you the same. People clearly hate Favre because of what went on at the end of his career, but the good out weighed the bad. He had his best season at the old age of 41 with the Vikings throwing 31td with only 7 int that season. A season that should have landed him his fourth MVP, but people felt to give Peyton the award to black ball Favre because he wasn't liked anymore. Favre should have gotten that over manning simply because he put up that kind of season with a team he was in his first season with. You clearly don't like Favre just like many others. But I give credit to were it's do, I don't have to like the guy to give him the award

toolkien's picture

1) I said Brunell could have won a Super Bowl with the team of mid-90's, but the Packers w/ Hasselbeck likely would have been as good in the second window in the 2000's. And I said neither Favre nor Brunell would have won one without White. And I called Brooks, the runt of the litter. Last, I was simply pointing out how rare 4,500 attempts were, and as good an indicator as any as to quality, and that Brooks himself had a respectable ~3,000. All indicators of TEAM abilities - in the front office, the coaches' meeting rooms, and out on the field.

2) Don't discount Holmgren because it was "Favre out on the field", Holmgren made a Super Bowl with Hasselbeck (and Ted Thompson's players) while Favre never made one without Holmgren. And as for Wolf, he had a 30 year pedigree before he even set foot in Green Bay as GM. It takes ALL those factors to make a quality team. And let's NEVER forget Bob Harlan, the one who got the whole ball rolling. IMO Harlan is as essential to Packer history as Lambeau and Lombardi. No joke, no hyperbole.

3) I have bent over BACKWARDS to make it clear that Favre is a HOF guy, the process I endeavor to accomplish is to point out that he's not some sort of demigod who "saved the franchise" and single handedly won Super Bowls and is somehow the Micheal Jordan of football. I'm not trying to run Favre down from being somewhere in the mid-teens all time at QB or top 100 player (out of thousands), that's still HOF caliber, but what I have said has to be taken context with the commentator above referring to the rest of the team, other than a couple of good defensive years, AS GARBAGE. THAT only flows from having to elevate Favre from a very respectable Jim Kelly caliber career to some sort of stratospheric one.

4) It's only between Ted Thompson and Brett Favre and we're not supposed to take sides? Favre, the poor guy, couldn't make up his silly old mind? How about Favre began handing out ultimatums in about 2005 while treating the team like a semi-retirement hobby shop? How about smugly saying "wadda they gunna do, cut me?" in 2006? How about all those dead eyed pressers in 2007? Favre didn't want to be in Green Bay anymore because Thompson had the gall to do his own job his own way. And Favre couldn't stand him for it. Favre went on record that he'd already been through one "evolution" and he didn't want the go through another, so the Packers, who were indeed poor by the mid-2000's due to Sherman, were just supposed to spackle on a few free agents and win another for the gipper. But TT didn't follow that plan, and it pissed Favre off.

But here's some perspective. What the clash was over was nothing that the 49ers with Montana didn't have to face, or Staubach with the Cowboys, or Aikman with the Cowboys, or Tarkenton with the Vikings. Do I need to supply more? But the DIFFERENCE is this was BRETT FAVRE we are talking about, not some mere mortals like Staubach or Aikman or Montana etc. ALL those guys had to face the inevitable reality of their mortality. And, by and large, they were GRACEFUL ABOUT IT. Favre? Nope. Three years of chain yanking and three years of "revenge" and three nights on Greta. There is your difference.

Favre, I guess, was supposed to have special rules only for him. He was supposed to be able to be the de facto GM, or be able snap his fingers and get out of his contract on HIS terms. In reality, WHILE UNDER CONTRACT, ANY player has three choices - play as designated, retire, or request a trade (and most teams will work with their stars to accommodate them). And all the nasty old Packers did was extend him the right of first refusal on the QB job, even after a sequence of poor playoffs and getting even older. Bastards. I guess neglecting to let Favre be the de facto GM was bad form (and all one has to do is reference the Greta interviews to deduce that). And so when Favre finally decided to exercise one of those options, he - of course - really didn't mean it, and had more chain yanking left in him, as we all saw.

And how did that arise? When did I finally, AFTER THREE YEARS OF PATIENCE, hate Brett Favre? When, in an interview in 2009, he was asked what was the epicenter of Favre's "mistrust" of TT he said "when he drafted two QB's and closed the door on me". Real class there boy. Just MORE de facto GM'ing, as he apparently was supposed to have draft sign off even in retirement. THAT did it. THAT popped the balloon, snapped the rubber band, toasted the bread. BEFORE Favre even set foot in Minnesota. Of course that didn't help any, especially the fist pumping glee in the locker room.

So, you see, it's not just as simple as you portray. Favre had the SAME CHOICES any other player had, EVEN PLAYER BETTER THAN HE, being under contract. But he was either supposed to be able to run the franchise or snap his fingers and have his contract go up in smoke. MONTANA didn't have that luxury, STAUBACH didn't have that luxury, AIKMAN didn't have that luxury. But Favre was supposed to. Because he was special. He "saved" the Packers. The rest of the Packers were "garbage" so he should have had a separate set of rules just for him. And Ted Thompson missed that memo and so it was just between the two of them and both were wrong.

Well, as I've heard, there were two or three executive board members who beside themselves in July/August when Favre began yanking the chain yet again. So it wasn't just Favre. And I'm sure McCarthy had had enough. As you may recall that marathon meeting between McCarthy and Favre after which McCarthy said the "train had left the station" that part of the reason it took so long is Favre kept taking personal calls and keeping McCarthy out on the tiles. I have no doubt that as far as McCarthy was concerned, that was his f**k it moment.

In the end, all this is just another example of how Favre was supposed to be regarded as some rare gem, a demigod amongst mortals, to dictate and to scold and to leave the team behind on his terms. He wasn't supposed to EVER face the same reality as players or QB's as good as OR BETTER. No, he was special and he had special rules. Open aired complaints, endless retirement sequences, revenge to seek. Meanwhile some other guys decided to let the inevitable "evolutions" take place and make their MANLY decisions about how they wanted to proceed. But Favre was supposed to able to handle the situation like a thirteen year old girl with the cramps and any indignation on our part is unworthy and ungrateful.

Was having a Jim Kelly guy better than not having one? You bet. But I sure as hell am not going make out like he was Otto Graham crossed with Joe Montana crossed with Tom Brady crossed with Jesus because Madden told me so and set him up with a different set of rules for the conduct of his career,a and the end thereof. The Packers management merely did what was necessary - willing to play Favre if he committed, let him retire and honor him, or willing to trade him to a MUTUALLY AGREEABLE TEAM. It was FAVRE who demanded a different set of rules. It was Favre who burned his legacy through SIX years or petulance - we didn't take it from him. And he simply buried it six feet deep with his failed attempts at revenge.

CoachSilva79.GBfan's picture

I don't believe he burned his legacy and plenty of others would agree. The way he acted the last few years of his career by no means erases what he has done. Maybe in green bay the fans think so, but I disagree totally. You still didn't comment on the fact defenses are weaker in this era of football along with rules that favor offenses now. Those rules being changed benefit Rodgers as well as many others in the league. If Favre had those rules in the 90s to work with he wouldnt have that many int's, his yards would have been crazy rediculous, and probably nearly double his td passes. I watched Favre from the beginning of his career. Those int's are not good, I know that. If you watched him from the beginning you would agree that 30% of those int's were tipped balls by his own receivers. I seen many times when I watched him play, throw the ball on the money and all of a sudden his receivers looked like volleyball players. I understand u and by no means upset with your take on the 2 qbs. I like Rodgers, I have no reason not to like him. I live in California and watched him mature and he is money with the ball and very smart with it. The only thing I didn't like about Favre was how he was careless with the ball once holmgren left. He never did stupid stuff like that when mike was there. You may think I'm crazy but I place Favre in the top 6 qbs in history. I think he has to be in there because he is the Qb with the most wins.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

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.

Or log in with Facebook



"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "