ESPN NFL

There was a high annoyance level with this week's "Have at it" topic -- but certainly no shortage of responses.

We asked you to consider whether Green Bay would be any better than 3-3 if its quarterback was still Brett Favre. More than a few readers saw the question as transparent bait.

"Just red meat thrown out to get a reaction," wrote jwmpc91.

I can't deny the intent, but the purpose of these features is to suggest an ambiguous topic that can reasonably generate defendable viewpoints from all ends of the spectrum. Without a doubt, this topic qualified.

Opinions were split quite evenly between those who believe Favre would have made a difference and those who think the quarterback position hasn't contributed substantially to the Packers' three losses. Occasionally someone suggested the team is better off with Rodgers, but mostly because he's proved he can be the team's long-term answer at the position.

A few entries were edited for length purposes this week.

DWW reflected a commonly held view: "I don't think it really matters which one of these guys is QB." DWW added:

The main reason for the 3-3 record is the defensive line, a tougher schedule, and injuries. I think the better question is what if [Ted Thompson] would have paid Corey Williams? All in all I don't think the Pack is getting enough credit. If Atari gets back soon, Al Harris actually does come back after the bye, and (I doubt this) Justin Harrell makes even a decent contribution to the d-line, things are looking up. The Packers had a much easier schedule last year, and lucked into a couple wins. I honestly don't think they were that much better than this year's team despite the difference in records.

Rodgers has "played well," Theyshotfritz wrote, "and I think that the Packers made the right choice."

Theyshotfritz added:

The first game against the vikes was the perfect example of why the pack is 3-3. All the hype was "can Rodgers lead the Pack to victory?" But after the 12 penalties for 118 yards my attention quickly turned to "what happened to the rest of the team?" Rodgers was playing just fine, but the rest of the team seemed to have forgotten the basic rules of football. If they can't stop getting stupid penalties it won't matter who is under center, Rodgers, Favre, or even Starr. You can't win when you are constantly battling 1st and 20, or 3rd and 15. Once they settle down and stop the penalties they'll be just fine.

Klinesmoker took a more aggressive view, suggesting Favre's tendency for bone-headed interceptions would have mitigated any other contributions:

There's been very little substance to the arguments that Favre would increase the win percentage of this team. Aaron Rodgers has already proven to be a deep threat and coaches recognize that. Nonetheless he is blitzed left and right because coaches ALSO recognize the weak offensive line protecting Rodgers.

I think it's a shame for everyone to ride high over last season when looking at it reveals that most of Favre's great performances came from not gunning downfield but completing slant patterns for 7-10 yard gains.

Flash forward to the NFC championship game. No running, no slant patterns. Deep bombs and INTs lost the chance at a superbowl (though I'm still pleased that NY went and won).

The evidence is in the stats. Favre means nothing when he isn't on the field, and he certainly doesn't play defense. "X" factor? He had none last year, but he played cohesive football and it won them games. The X factor was the championship game, and that was the exact game that I saw Favre play so many times that made me cringe inside.

On the flip side, as knutenorenberg wrote, Favre might have more capacity to carry a flawed team than Rodgers.

How soon we forget that Favre put the team on his back the first half of the year in 07-08 and basically by himself kept the Packers winning. He had no threat of a running game until Ryan Grant showed up at the halfway point. Rodgers is showing the difference between good players and great players. It's never a good player's fault when things go bad because they put up good numbers. A GREAT player finds a way to will his team to victory. Favre is a GREAT player!

More specifically, jayb10306 suggested the Packers would be 5-1 with Favre.

They would have beat tampa bay surely and wouldn't have made all those mistakes in that game that A.Rodgers did and they also would have beaten the falcons. Rodgers threw a crucial INT at the end of that game. remember when favre was throwing a lot of picks thats was because the talent level wasnt great around him but when G.Jennings finally turned into 1 of the top young WR favre last year in GB was great.

My take? Glad you asked. As I see it, there is one loss Green Bay might have reversed with Favre: The 30-21 defeat at Tampa Bay, where Rodgers not only threw three interceptions but also sprained his right shoulder on a reckless scramble and left the team in the hands of rookie quarterback Matt Flynn for a time.

But I also don't think you can take this question as an "either-or" proposition. Every year, Favre had a game or two -- or more -- where his risks didn't pay off, instead leading to multiple interceptions. Who's to say that wouldn't have come against Minnesota or Detroit or Seattle?

In the end, the Packers are where they should be -- regardless of who is behind center.