Why can't Wisconsin sports fans have nice things?

[MrTPlush]

I’m guessing Rodgers has had worse RBs overall. Before Jones broke out last year Rodgers entire career has been loaded with some absolutely horrid running backs. Jamaal Williams, Brandon Jennings, Ty Montgomery, James Starks, and Alex Green have all been the leading rusher on a Rodgers team. Favre had way better running backs from the looks of it, like not even close better.

 

Coaching can have a big impact, but going from the MVP to throwing more picks than TDs in two years is on Favre. If Holmgren sticks around would he have ended up more favorably? I mean, yah, probably. I still think he falls off a big cliff regardless.

 

I also think the whole “different era” thing is a bit overblown. It seems to imply like it wasn’t a passing league in Favre’s time. Favre threw just as much as modern day guys, I think he threw more than Rodgers does (on average) actually. This isn’t like trying to compare Unitas (who threw about 350 times a year) to Rodgers (who throws about 550). The era was a bit different, but not that different.

 

Their quality of defenses were close. Both never really had elite defense outside of a year or two. I think Rodgers has had more disaster defenses. Favre’s usually were at least average.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The eras are vastly different, but it's not that it wasn't a passing league. At least the front 9 of Favre's career is way different. 30 TDs was a benchmark, so was 3,000 yards. It was an achievement if you did that.

 

Philip Rivers ranked 17th this year with 24 TDs. He would be 7th in the league in 1998 and 4th in 1999.

 

12 QBs threw for 4,000 yards this year. There were 2 in 1998, Favre and Young. Interceptions were also much more forgivable at the time.

 

Throwing 31 TDs and 24 INTs got Brett Favre into the Pro Bowl. If you did that now and were not an established star, there would be rumors about the team trying to replace you. Jameis Winston threw 33 TDs last year, and for that he became a backup QB. Even with the 30 INTs, that just would never have happened 20 years ago.

[MrTPlush]

Right, Favre’s era was different. However, at the same time he himself was ahead of his time essentially. I’m not trying to compare him to his peers necessarily...more so Rodgers. Favre threw as much as a modern QB, which only a select few did back then. In 2000 only 10 QB threw the ball 500 times, zero 600. This year 15 threw 500 times and 3 were over 600. These days everyone is throwing 450+ healthy, while back then throwing in the 300s was still common.

 

It’s not an apples to apples comparison, but I think they are a bit more comparable than some make it. Favre was one of the rare guys who went out there and tossed the ball around all game in that era. Which, is similar to today’s game. You still have to take into consideration some differences, but it isn’t like trying to compare Rodgers to a guy from the 70s where the game was completely different.

[pacopete4]

If only Favre couldn’t be hit and WRs could run free off the line and never be punished over the middle. The number of attempts is one things but the other factors are huge.

[MrTPlush]

If only Favre couldn’t be hit and WRs could run free off the line and never be punished over the middle. The number of attempts is one things but the other factors are huge.

 

Sure, but Rodgers played quite a few years before he and his receivers got those massive protections we see now. It’s not like his entire career has been in the bubble wrap era like Patrick Mahomes and co.

[tmwiese55]

The biggest aspect of Favre/Rodgers discussion should simply come down to turnovers. I'd guess Rodgers sitting those few years and watching Favre play so recklessly and have that 28 int season was a big lesson to him, and something the coaches were hammering into him behind the scenes. Rodgers understood with how good he was taking a sack is fine relative to an int, he can make it up the next play or later in the game. And with his scramble ability it was better to try and get away than to chuck it up. Favre was mobile too, so he shouldn't have been the same way.

 

Rodgers emphasis on this aspect kind of ushered in a new era of QB as now all the top guys are like this in INT avoidance, trying to keep at 10 or below. As opposed to say late 90s-2010ish mid teens was common and at times more even for the top guys. And it was with less attempts then, but balanced by easier rules now too.

 

In general I was on the OSS view on Favre as well. One of the few people saying this guy is just reckless at this point and his legend status and ego has him immune from criticism or listening to his coaches. Throw 6 mostly bonehead picks in a playoff game, it's someone else's fault, not his. I remember the early Dal game when Favre got hurt and Arod played for the first time, I was in a bar because it was an NFL network game that most cable didn't have yet at the time, and I thought might get attacked for being excited/happy/cheering for it to happen.

[SomewhereInTime]

It's not all rule changes that have lead to the difference in numbers. A large part of it is much more aggressive play calling and much more advanced play design. Many teams these days will spend the majority of the game in shotgun (GB was over 80% last week) and much of the game will have 3+ true receivers on the field. Go back a few decades and there were a lot more two back sets with the QB under center and only one or two receivers on the field.

 

In recent years coaches have wised up quite a bit too and do a lot less punting. On 4th down from the 50 you're not looking to coffin corner an opponent anymore, you're looking to get a first down.

[pacopete4]

Yeah, for the most part the ole ground and pound just isn’t a thing anymore.

[Jimbo]

In general I was on the OSS view on Favre as well. One of the few people saying this guy is just reckless at this point and his legend status and ego has him immune from criticism or listening to his coaches. Throw 6 mostly bonehead picks in a playoff game, it's someone else's fault, not his. I remember the early Dal game when Favre got hurt and Arod played for the first time, I was in a bar because it was an NFL network game that most cable didn't have yet at the time, and I thought might get attacked for being excited/happy/cheering for it to happen.

 

I remember watching this game as well. Didn't Rodgers have a long scramble for a TD?

 

One thing about that time is IIRC Rodgers was thought to be injury prone and was questioned as to if he was durable enough to play in the league.

[pacopete4]

Even Rodgers has mentioned a few times in interviews about how he observed Favre during his years on the bench and learned how you have to play through injuries. Rodgers is great but I doubt he has the career he has now if he doesn't see firsthand what greatness looks like. Favre has his faults, that's for sure, but Rodgers actually picked up a lot of similarities, even down to a chin strap and snap count, from Favre.

[CheezWizHed]

Based on what passes as a HOF level QB, there are likely a dozen in the league right now and by no means do you need one of them to win a Super Bowl. You need great players, good players, and above average players starting at many different positions along with good coaching, QB is just one of those positions.

 

Yes, you need a solid overall team - Rodgers can't win it all. But if you look at the Super Bowl champions, very rarely is the QB not central to the victory. Of the past 20 years, only a handful of teams had a QB that isn't a legit HOFer (Brady, Rodgers, Roth, Peyton, Mahomes (probably), Warner etc..) or at least was one of the top QBs for that season (Eli, Wilson, Wentz/Foles).

[SeaBass]

The biggest aspect of Favre/Rodgers discussion should simply come down to turnovers. I'd guess Rodgers sitting those few years and watching Favre play so recklessly and have that 28 int season was a big lesson to him, and something the coaches were hammering into him behind the scenes. Rodgers understood with how good he was taking a sack is fine relative to an int, he can make it up the next play or later in the game. And with his scramble ability it was better to try and get away than to chuck it up. Favre was mobile too, so he shouldn't have been the same way.

 

Rodgers emphasis on this aspect kind of ushered in a new era of QB as now all the top guys are like this in INT avoidance, trying to keep at 10 or below. As opposed to say late 90s-2010ish mid teens was common and at times more even for the top guys. And it was with less attempts then, but balanced by easier rules now too.

 

In general I was on the OSS view on Favre as well. One of the few people saying this guy is just reckless at this point and his legend status and ego has him immune from criticism or listening to his coaches. Throw 6 mostly bonehead picks in a playoff game, it's someone else's fault, not his. I remember the early Dal game when Favre got hurt and Arod played for the first time, I was in a bar because it was an NFL network game that most cable didn't have yet at the time, and I thought might get attacked for being excited/happy/cheering for it to happen.

I remember reading something very recently, perhaps a week ago don't remember where, where Rodgers talks about when he realized or adopted the no interceptions/turnover mentality he has. I had always assumed it was something he consciously focused on because Favre threw so many but he actually caught on to it either in high school or at worst right away in college. I think one of his quotes was something along the lines of, he noticed how all the QBs even around the country were guys that didn't turn the ball over and his coaches would constantly hammer the no turnovers mandate into QBs. He figured out that if he didn't turn the ball over he'd get opportunities to play and if he did turn the ball over he might lose playing time. Not groundbreaking concepts but to me the surprise was it wasn't as much of a Favre type of influence and it wasn't a new thing with him becoming a pro.

[tmwiese55]

In general I was on the OSS view on Favre as well. One of the few people saying this guy is just reckless at this point and his legend status and ego has him immune from criticism or listening to his coaches. Throw 6 mostly bonehead picks in a playoff game, it's someone else's fault, not his. I remember the early Dal game when Favre got hurt and Arod played for the first time, I was in a bar because it was an NFL network game that most cable didn't have yet at the time, and I thought might get attacked for being excited/happy/cheering for it to happen.

 

I remember watching this game as well. Didn't Rodgers have a long scramble for a TD?

 

One thing about that time is IIRC Rodgers was thought to be injury prone and was questioned as to if he was durable enough to play in the league.

 

Not sure on scramble. But Favre through at least one, I think two, bad picks that put GB in a big hole. Rodgers came in and played great and got them back in it but ultimately lost.

 

Yes I remember the injury issues at the beginning too. Don't want to go and double check, but I actually think Rodgers got hurt in that game too and was out for a bit afterwards. Feel like a joke being how Favre has played 850 straight games, new dude plays one and gets hurt.

[AKCheesehead]

I think a lot of people forget a heck of a lot of things when they talk about Favre and instead base their point of view off looking at his stats on pro football reference. There is a ton of context lost. People love to talk about interceptions and yes he threw quite a few. And some of them really did stink. But I think you also have to consider the amount of receiver dropped/tipped interceptions, the amount of picks where the receiver was new or inexperienced in GB's system and ran the wrong route. There was plenty of that. Also, just in general there were more interceptions league wide back then too. For example in '19 in the NFL there were 797 TD passes and 410 INTs. Back up 20 years to '99 and it's 665 TDs 562 INTs.

If Favre wasn't that good, try on the Mark Brunell experience. Brunell, a very competent and average to above average QB of the same era. How many wins and playoff appearances do you suppose would GB have had over that time with Mark Brunell as their starting quarterback?

[tmwiese55]

Yea it's not say Favre wasn't still a good QB. But this was his weakness and he didn't really improve it. Doesn't mean he still wasn't very good. And obviously that 5ish year stretch he was better than anyone win the league. It's like when someone gets defensive if you point Giannis can't shoot. Doesn't mean he's still not the reason they're good and that he isn't awesome, but no one is perfect. But this is the main thing that makes it clear to me, and should be to tall, as to why Rodgers is much better and on a different level.

 

To your points on tips and it being the receivers fault. That's what I'm getting at. First, tip balls often come from forces, which is what Favre did because he had such a ridiculous arm. Can't just say welp it was tipped so not his fault. he was putting it in danger and that's what Rodgers has led the whole league to avoid doing as much as possible. Hit a WR in the hands/chest though and he tips it up, yea of course different story. For the routes, yes I'm sure people screwed up routes, and sometime he did as well. Problem was, it was spun as 100% the receivers fault and never his when the reality was it was a mix. And have to remember many routes are reads, not just preset to do a square in no matter what. There was a bad one like this in the 6 pick playoff game where the receiver was uncovered for a TD, but of course the receiver got the blame.

[SomewhereInTime]

Based on what passes as a HOF level QB, there are likely a dozen in the league right now and by no means do you need one of them to win a Super Bowl. You need great players, good players, and above average players starting at many different positions along with good coaching, QB is just one of those positions.

 

Yes, you need a solid overall team - Rodgers can't win it all. But if you look at the Super Bowl champions, very rarely is the QB not central to the victory. Of the past 20 years, only a handful of teams had a QB that isn't a legit HOFer (Brady, Rodgers, Roth, Peyton, Mahomes (probably), Warner etc..) or at least was one of the top QBs for that season (Eli, Wilson, Wentz/Foles).

 

Yeah it's just often a whole offense playing well that leads to quarterback numbers looking great. The biggest key to winning Super Bowls is to have a young QB on a rookie contract so you can spend the rest of the money building the great team around him (Or find a Tom Brady who's married to an international supermodel who makes more money than him giving him no desire to be the top paid QB). Another acceptable route is to build the great team and find an end of his career veteran to play QB (like Peyton Manning) but even in that case, they probably would have been better off with just about anyone else playing QB as Manning was completely done at that point.

[MrTPlush]

I don’t think there is any reason to try and sugar coat Favre’s INT problems. Every QB has tipped and wrong route INTs. Favre is histories top INT guy because he made that many terrible decisions.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Everyone, not just Favre, threw more picks though. The analytics weren't there and it was ok to throw 20 picks if you threw 30 TDs. Interceptions are seen for the game-turning play they are now, which has led to a generation where the best quarterbacks aren't allowed to throw them.

 

Drew Lock led the league with 15 picks. In 1996, 21 players threw 13+. Truthfully, he's the top INT guy because he never missed any games, the next reason is he took a lot of chances.

[CheezWizHed]

The game was very different then. Half of Favre's sacks back then would be personal fouls today. Much about the game changed.

[CheezWizHed]

Yeah it's just often a whole offense playing well that leads to quarterback numbers looking great. The biggest key to winning Super Bowls is to have a young QB on a rookie contract so you can spend the rest of the money building the great team around him (Or find a Tom Brady who's married to an international supermodel who makes more money than him giving him no desire to be the top paid QB). Another acceptable route is to build the great team and find an end of his career veteran to play QB (like Peyton Manning) but even in that case, they probably would have been better off with just about anyone else playing QB as Manning was completely done at that point.

 

I wonder why people keep repeating this?

 

From 2000-2021 (I can count this year since neither QB this year is on a rookie contract), the SB winning QB is on a rookie contract 31.8% (7 of 22) of the time. The SB losing QB is on a rookie contract 22.7% (5 of 22) of the time (or 27.3% combined).

 

6 of the 7 SB winning QBs are probably future HOF QBs (Brady 2x, Rothlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Mahomes) with Flacco as the other. Of the 5 SB losing QBs, you have Wilson as future HOF probable with McNair, Grossman, Kapernick, and Goff.

 

Best way to win a SB is to have a HOF level QB on a rookie contract. The second best way is to have a HOF level QB.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yeah it's just often a whole offense playing well that leads to quarterback numbers looking great. The biggest key to winning Super Bowls is to have a young QB on a rookie contract so you can spend the rest of the money building the great team around him (Or find a Tom Brady who's married to an international supermodel who makes more money than him giving him no desire to be the top paid QB). Another acceptable route is to build the great team and find an end of his career veteran to play QB (like Peyton Manning) but even in that case, they probably would have been better off with just about anyone else playing QB as Manning was completely done at that point.

 

I wonder why people keep repeating this?

 

From 2000-2021 (I can count this year since neither QB this year is on a rookie contract), the SB winning QB is on a rookie contract 31.8% (7 of 22) of the time. The SB losing QB is on a rookie contract 22.7% (5 of 22) of the time (or 27.3% combined).

 

6 of the 7 SB winning QBs are probably future HOF QBs (Brady 2x, Rothlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Mahomes) with Flacco as the other. Of the 5 SB losing QBs, you have Wilson as future HOF probable with McNair, Grossman, Kapernick, and Goff.

 

Best way to win a SB is to have a HOF level QB on a rookie contract. The second best way is to have a HOF level QB.

 

2000 is way too early to use here. This is a very recent trend that started with Seattle, then worked in Philly and Kansas City. You've seen what's happened to Philly and Seattle and KC will follow.

 

It's not winning the Super Bowl either, it's the fact that way more clubs have a willingness to toss the young QBs in immediately and get value off that first contract.

 

But I find the numbers you used pretty convincing of the argument anyway. That's a lot of quarterbacks. That most of them end up really good isn't a detraction, it's the premise of the argument. You win with a great QB you don't have to pay.

 

Further, Brady skews the whole thing anyway, because he's never been paid like the 10x conference champion QB he is. The Patriots domination helps make the argument itself.

[SomewhereInTime]

Yeah it's just often a whole offense playing well that leads to quarterback numbers looking great. The biggest key to winning Super Bowls is to have a young QB on a rookie contract so you can spend the rest of the money building the great team around him (Or find a Tom Brady who's married to an international supermodel who makes more money than him giving him no desire to be the top paid QB). Another acceptable route is to build the great team and find an end of his career veteran to play QB (like Peyton Manning) but even in that case, they probably would have been better off with just about anyone else playing QB as Manning was completely done at that point.

 

I wonder why people keep repeating this?

 

From 2000-2021 (I can count this year since neither QB this year is on a rookie contract), the SB winning QB is on a rookie contract 31.8% (7 of 22) of the time. The SB losing QB is on a rookie contract 22.7% (5 of 22) of the time (or 27.3% combined).

 

6 of the 7 SB winning QBs are probably future HOF QBs (Brady 2x, Rothlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Mahomes) with Flacco as the other. Of the 5 SB losing QBs, you have Wilson as future HOF probable with McNair, Grossman, Kapernick, and Goff.

 

Best way to win a SB is to have a HOF level QB on a rookie contract. The second best way is to have a HOF level QB.

 

Last year you had the Chiefs with Mahomes, that's one

 

Year before you had Patriots with Brady (see the rest of my post)

 

Year before you had Eagles (although the backup QB actually played in the playoffs, if anything, strengthens my point)

 

Year before you had Patriots with Brady

 

Year before you had Broncos with Manning on his last legs making less than he did earlier in his career and likely hurting more than helping that team to a super bowl run (This one's kind of an outlier but doesn't really point to good QB play leading to a title)

 

Year before was Patriots with Brady

 

Year before was Seattle with rookie contract Wilson (has not won a super bowl since)

 

Year before was Ravens with Flacco (Before he got big payday, never won another after)

 

Year before was Giants with Eli (First legitimate outlier, they were 9-7 though so maybe chalk it up to luck)

 

Year before was Packers with Rodgers before he got paid (And also many forget, due to the labor situation at the time, this was an uncapped year, so I probably shouldn't even count this one)

 

Once you go back much further before this, top draft picks were more of a burden than help with the crazy rookie contracts given out

[SomewhereInTime]

It's been kind of amazing to watch how much Seattle has mirrored Green Bay. Win the Super Bowl early on with a young QB on a defensive lead team, pay the QB way too much money and watch as that strong defense disintegrates and they're left playing QB ball with a much weaker team around him. They're not terrible by any means, a good QB is certainly helpful, and having a number of playoff runs isn't a bad thing, they're just not winning the Super Bowl.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's been kind of amazing to watch how much Seattle has mirrored Green Bay. Win the Super Bowl early on with a young QB on a defensive lead team, pay the QB way too much money and watch as that strong defense disintegrates and they're left playing QB ball with a much weaker team around him. They're not terrible by any means, a good QB is certainly helpful, and having a number of playoff runs isn't a bad thing, they're just not winning the Super Bowl.

 

Pittsburgh too. Ben's 3 appearances gloss over that he hasn't been there since 2010.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

It's been kind of amazing to watch how much Seattle has mirrored Green Bay. Win the Super Bowl early on with a young QB on a defensive lead team, pay the QB way too much money and watch as that strong defense disintegrates and they're left playing QB ball with a much weaker team around him. They're not terrible by any means, a good QB is certainly helpful, and having a number of playoff runs isn't a bad thing, they're just not winning the Super Bowl.

 

I just had a flashback to those late-'90s/early-'00s Packers teams as well. It's almost comical how Favre and Rodgers' career archs have mimicked each other. Favre had a couple extra seasons early on as the starter before making the Super Bowl, but otherwise it is eerily similar, right down to the veteran QB's confusion whether they'll be back next year. The only thing Rodgers doesn't have is the multiple will-he or won't-he threatened retirements.