As we look at a beginning of a new era on the Minnesota side of the Packer/Viking rivalry, one might have to go back and look at the beginning of the last era over in Green Bay.
It was 2008, and Brett Favre had just retired. A young quarterback named Aaron Rodgers was about to be the starter in Green Bay. Then Brett Favre, to quote John Madden, was Brett Favre.
The story has been mentioned several times on this website, so I think it's safe to say that you all know what happened. Favre was traded to the Jets. Rodgers led the Pack to a 6-10 record. Favre played for the Vikings, lost in the NFC Championship game. Rodgers won the Super Bowl the following year as Favre failed to get his John Elway ending to his career.
As a Viking fan, I may be annoyed of the John Deere Cult's worship of Rodgers, but there is one thing that I may agree with them on...
A couple of weeks ago, on Sunday Night Football, NBC showed a graphic. Aaron Rodgers had just thrown his 100th touchdown and had the fewest amount of interceptions at the time of that milestone. Then, NBC showed another graphic comparing Rodgers' numbers to Favre's numbers at the time of touchdown #100. The comparison graphic showed one thing: It's time to stop comparing Rodgers to Favre.
Rodgers is simply on a different level than Favre ever was. They're different quarterbacks. To suggest that Rodgers success is based on the fact that he learned behind Favre is laughable. If anything, when Favre saw quadruple coverage on Antonio Freeman and threw it anyway. At this time, Mike McCarthy's staff turned to Rodgers and said "Don't ever @#$%ing do THAT!"
What Rodgers is to quarterbacking is a symbol of excellence. Rodgers greatness is comparable to that of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady at this point. These are guys who sit down, watch film, and figure out how to pick your favorite team apart. All three of these guys have the potential to win multiple Super Bowls compared to Favre, who won just one. (I say that mainly of Manning and Rodgers as both have just one Super Bowl right now.)
The other thing is that if Rodgers is not better than Favre, he is just as good. This shadow should have been wiped away after Rodgers won the Super Bowl last year, but for whatever reason it's still there. While you could make an argument that Rodgers may still be on Favre's level, can you make an argument that he's worse? Didn't think so.
Don't get me wrong, both Favre and Rodgers* should be hall of fame quarterbacks someday, but the fact is their paths to the NFL, and their successess are completely unrelated. It's time that people start seeing that.
* Rodgers should be a hall of fame quarterback barring injury or depletion of his elite receiving corps. Don't think it's elite? Why did the Vikings go after James Jones to be their #1 receiver last season? An elite group of pass catchers can't hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment