The Viking Age is Upon Us

[Jordysghost]

Being a great QB isn't just about the stats.
Give Rodgers time. He's trying to catch up! Favre set the bar high but GB's record in playoff games since their Super Bowl-winning season in 2010 is 2-4 and Rodgers threw 4 picks in those losses.

Rodgers doesn't need to 'catch up' to Favre in any category, he leads every statistical ranking and has the 2nd highest postseason passer rating in NFL history. Favre cant compare in any facet, im just going of what the on field production bears out.

If stats aren't the only measure, then what would it be? Championships I assume? That still wouldnt point to Favre being better, he has the same amount as Rodgers but his career is over.

[Mothman]

Rodgers doesn't need to 'catch up' to Favre in any category, he leads every statistical ranking and has the 2nd highest postseason passer rating in NFL history. Favre cant compare in any facet, im just going of what the on field production bears out.

LOL! I'm just having some fun with you.

If stats aren't the only measure, then what would it be? Championships I assume?

I think everything goes into the hopper: championships, overall performance, performance in crucial situations, leadership, stats ... everything. That's why I think Brady has a clear edge over Rodgers at this point in their respective careers. He's been the key player at the heart of one of the most remarkable runs of success in NFL history (the kind of run that was thought to be impossible in the era of free agency until they proved otherwise).

Rodgers has been great. Seriously, his stats are out of this world, he has a Super Bowl win... he's been an excellent player so far and the less said about Favre, the better (I'm not a fan). I just think AR has a lot more to accomplish if he's going to get serious consideration as the GOAT (at least from me—everybody has their own view on that sort of thing and there's never a definitive answer).

Now, enough about all this Packer stuff... this thread is about the Viking Age!

[Jordysghost]

LOL! I'm just having some fun with you.
I think everything goes into the hopper: championships, overall performance, performance in crucial situations, leadership, stats ... everything. That's why I think Brady has a clear edge over Rodgers at this point in their respective careers. He's been the key player at the heart of one of the most remarkable runs of success in NFL history (the kind of run that was thought to be impossible in the era of free agency until they proved otherwise).

Rodgers has been great. Seriously, his stats are out of this world, he has a Super Bowl win... he's been an excellent player so far and the less said about Favre, the better (I'm not a fan). I just think AR has a lot more to accomplish if he's going to get serious consideration as the GOAT (at least from me—everybody has their own view on that sort of thing and there's never a definitive answer).

Now, enough about all this Packer stuff... this thread is about the Viking Age!

Yes I apologize for getting this one a little off track, and I actually somewhat agree with you, Rodgers needs more Championships to fit my definition of Greatest of All Time as well.

My thoughts on Brady and how he stacks up historically? Well, that is rant for another day.

[Mothman]

Yes I apologize for getting this one a little off track, and I actually somewhat agree with you, Rodgers needs more Championships to fit my definition of Greatest of All Time as well.

My thoughts on Brady and how he stacks up historically? Well, that is rant for another day.

No worries about getting off track. It was a good discussion!

[J. Kapp 11]

Being a great QB isn't just about the stats.
Give Rodgers time. He's trying to catch up! Favre set the bar high but GB's record in playoff games since their Super Bowl-winning season in 2010 is 2-4 and Rodgers threw 4 picks in those losses.

Where's the high-five or chest-bump emoji? Nice, Jim!

[akvikingsfan]

Didn't want to start a new post for this, but the Vikings are currently ranked #5 on theNFL Power Rankings.

[Jordysghost]

Where's the high-five or chest-bump emoji? Nice, Jim!

If statistically incorrect..

[J. Kapp 11]

Its not ridiculous, look at the stats, one is clearly a million times better then the other.

Really? Or are you just looking at the stats you want to look at.

From 94-96, Brett Favre threw high 30s in TD passes with fewer than 15 INTs each season.

Bradshaw has 4 SBs and Marino has none, so who cares about if Favre has one more appearance? He also had consistently better teams (Take a look at 90s Ds in comparison to this decade) including his only SB winning team that allowed an NFL record low 19 TDs. Those 90s teams were stacked.

Again, you don't seem to know your own team's history.

Favre's teams had 5 Pro Bowlers in the Super Bowl winning season and 6 the following year. Prior to that, the Packers never had more than 3, including Favre himself.

Aaron Rodgers has never been a starter where there were fewer than 4 Pro Bowlers on the Packers, with 5 or more being the norm. If anything, Rodgers has played with the stacked teams.

Never mind that fact that Favre was one of the biggest chokers ive ever seen in my life, playoff game after playoff game, game losing pick after game losing pick.

Wow. The 3-time MVP was a choker. You must be pretty young because your memory is pretty selective. But never mind that. Jim has already proved that Rodgers' overall playoff record, especially since 2011, is pretty horrific.

Favre was never close to Rodgers level, he isn't top 5, he barely makes top 10 all time, if at all.

The 2008 team didn't go 6-10 because of Rodgers, anything but, had Favre stayed on board i really doubt or Defense wouldnt have fallen completely to #### because of it.

All your opinion, which you're entitled to. But you've not proven anything other than your bias against Brett Favre.

[Jordysghost]

Really? Or are you just looking at the stats you want to look at.

From 94-96, Brett Favre threw high 30s in TD passes with fewer than 15 INTs each season.
Again, you don't seem to know your own team's history.

Favre's teams had 5 Pro Bowlers in the Super Bowl winning season and 6 the following year. Prior to that, the Packers never had more than 3, including Favre himself.

Aaron Rodgers has never been a starter where there were fewer than 4 Pro Bowlers on the Packers, with 5 or more being the norm. If anything, Rodgers has played with the stacked teams.
Wow. The 3-time MVP was a choker. You must be pretty young because your memory is pretty selective. But never mind that. Jim has already proved that Rodgers' overall playoff record, especially since 2011, is pretty horrific.
All your opinion, which you're entitled to. But you've not proven anything other than your bias against Brett Favre.

Rodgers has the 2nd highest postseason passer rating in NFL history, right after Bart Starr.

How about you look at the state of the other side of the ball? The Packers Defense in the 90s was year in, year out a top 5 unit, Favres only SB win he had a D that gave up an NFL record 19 TDs all year. He also had Sterling Sharpe for the early part of his career, whos numbers prior to his career ending injury were rivaled only be Jerry Rice.

Pretty much what im saying, is NFL statistics matter more then a popularity contest joke like the probowl.

I know exactly what Favre accomplished during his career, and yet, he still trails Aaron Rodgers in every single passing statistic, every. single. one. Are you really going to make me post them? Because stats to stats, this just isn't argument that is going to go in the favor of Favre.

Yes, the three time MVP was a choker, a huge choker, Rodgers is yet to have that signature moronic throw that directly loses a game in the playoffs, Favre has about 4 of those. Im scared to even look up his postseason passer rating.

Does the idea that Favres 28-15 Td to Int ratio production in 2007, would make the 2008 Packers team (and specifically Defense) better then then superior, 28-13 4000+ yard production of Rodgers, really fall into the category of 'my opinion'?

The stats prove it all, not me or anyone else needs to prove a thing.

Note: We should probably take this discussion somewhere more appropriate if you wish to continue.

[Purple bruise]

The Viking Age is upon Us.
Might as well turn this into a Packer Message board

[Jordysghost]

Really? Or are you just looking at the stats you want to look at.

From 94-96, Brett Favre threw high 30s in TD passes with fewer than 15 INTs each season.

Also, this comment confuses me, you do know the last three seasons Rodgers has been healthy that he has done this exact same thing, except turn the number '15' to 10.

[Jordysghost]

The Viking Age is upon Us.
Might as well turn this into a Packer Message board

Yes I think its best to let this one get back on track, so im checking out here.

[J. Kapp 11]

Also, this comment confuses me, you do know the last three seasons Rodgers has been healthy that he has done this exact same thing, except turn the number '15' to 10.

But you said Rodgers is a gazillion times better.

Look man. Fran Tarkenton lost 3 Super Bowls and threw 32 picks his final season. But you don't see Vikings fans calling him a choker and whatever else you call Favre. It's called appreciating players who contribute positively to your team's history.

You like Rodgers. Great. Now let's talk about how the Vikings are about to take a 2-game lead and put the Packers in jeopardy of missing the playoffs altogether behind the God-like Aaron Rodgers.

[Jordysghost]

Nothing I said had anything to do with how much I like Rodgers.

And yes, your Vikings have a hell of an opportunity this Sunday, for sure.

[Mothman]

If statistically incorrect..

It's correct:

In 2011, they lost to the Giants and Rodgers threw 1 INT
In 2012, they beat the Vikings and lost to the 49ers. Rodgers threw 1 INT in that loss.
In 2013, they lost to SF again.
In 2014, they beat Dallas and lost to Seattle. Rodgers threw 2 picks against the Seahawks.

2-4, 4 interceptions.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... elog/post/