You should see what the Favre haters have written here over the last few years. They have been silent this year but will chime in soon.Only idiots would suggest that. Plain and simple. I'm no Packers fan but to suggest they'd be better than Favre based on one game when Favre's been otherwise brilliant all year is probably a sign of mental re-tardation.
About 30 mins ago...When do the "Packers are better w/Rodgers" rumblings start?
This thread is the definition of
I'm game. Link me to some of the worst comments about Favre. From what I have seen, posters around here have a tendency to be no more harsh towards Favre than some people in the media. In fact, even his largest detractors on this forum have a tendency to give the man his props.You should see what the Favre haters have written here over the last few years.
on this thread...
Looks to me like you are the one who started it.[scooter] said:When do the "Packers are better w/Rodgers" rumblings start?,
Well, the first part, Rogers and Feeley are both backups...woopity do.2nd part: Favre is MUCH better than McNabb could ever have hoped to be and the same might be able to be said for Rogers/Feeley, although the sample size is too small.If that's what you meant...right on![scooter] said:Rodgers is to Favre as Feeley is to McNabb.andFavre is to McNabb as Rodgers is to Feeley.
Agreed on all counts. I was impressed with Rodgers last night. Really impressed. Guys that have held the clipboard tend to have a shorter learning curve once they start ala Trent Green, Carson Palmer, Kitna whereas guys that have been thrown to the wolves early on have struggled - Leinart, Vinny, etc. I like what I saw but no way anyone should even suggest that Rodgers should be the man until Brett Favre and Brett Favre alone decides when he wants to quit playing...mlball77 said:Favre, even at this point in his career, is clearly the superior QB. However, it is looking as though maybe Rodgers isn't the 'bust' that many had declared him in the last year or two (based almost exclusively off of preseason games and camps). I never understood why he got that moniker; he hasn't played nearly enough to earn it. Who knows?... Maybe his time playing behind a great like Favre has done Rodgers some good over the past 3 seasons and will have better prepared him to succeed at the NFL level. Or maybe Rodgers is a "bust?" Still to be determined.As of today, GB is definitely better off with Favre at QB, imho. He has had a fantastic season.
Favre is a hall-of-famer with a superior backup QB. McNabb is a sometimes-all-pro with a mediocre backup. Rodgers' performance last night was much better than Feeley's performance last week.Well, the first part, Rogers and Feeley are both backups...woopity do.2nd part: Favre is MUCH better than McNabb could ever have hoped to be and the same might be able to be said for Rogers/Feeley, although the sample size is too small.If that's what you meant...right on![scooter] said:Rodgers is to Favre as Feeley is to McNabb.andFavre is to McNabb as Rodgers is to Feeley.
but makes meHow dare the Packers have more good QBs than the rest of the division combined.
Favre has had the following teammates throughout his career:Chris MillerBilly Joe TolliverMike TomczakDon MajkowskiKen O'BrienKurt WarnerMark BrunellJim McMahonSteve BonoAaron BrooksMatt HasselbeckAaron RodgersHow dare the Packers have more good QBs than the rest of the division combined.