There's no way Jordy is better than Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, and Antonio Freeman. He actually is probably comparable in a lot of ways to Schroeder.
HOFer
There's no way Jordy is better than Sterling Sharpe, Robert Brooks, and Antonio Freeman. He actually is probably comparable in a lot of ways to Schroeder.
How about Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett as targets compared to Grant and Jackson?
Brooks WAS Greg Jennings prior to the knee injury. Freeman when young was as good as Driver.
How about a better running game?
Only Finley is truly different and even he could be compared to Jackson.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
This makes very little sense to me. I never thought of Favre that way. frustrating yes, stat collector not so much. At least until he left GB!Originally Posted by JustinHarrell
I think the 2002 team was ready to win it all and the wheels got shot off that team at the end of the season. Just goes to show how you have to be good, plus have things fall your way to win the big one. GB is primed for some runs at this again, but we have all seen that it doesn't always work out. Football is a fickle game....
Aaron Rodgers IS the most complete Packer QB ever. He may well be the most complete QB ever. Montana didn't have the arm Rodgers has. Young maybe beats him but Rodgers has a stronger arm than he had too I'd say.
He's far more physically gifted than Starr and we all know about the shortcomings of Favre in terms of his discipline - on and off the field.
Hopefully he can stay healthy and play for 10 more years because he's everything you could want in a QB plus a couple concussions.
It's funny now that people questioned his clutchness. His post-season numbers are unbelievable - much better than his regular season production, which is among the best ever.
Last edited by vince; 02-12-2011 at 06:17 AM.
Thank you, Harv. I hope this forestalls any arguments about poor Brent not having a good enough supporting cast. And I would argue that before Brooks got hurt, he was a superb wide receiver - it's one of the great shames of Packer history that the poor guy got hurt during the SB year. He had fine hands, good moves, ran disciplined routes, and apparently was a quiet, humble guy on top of it. Perhaps defensively the Packers did not have the team one would've liked - I will grant that. But they did have some good defenses out there for several years, anyway. And, as someone else pointed out, Favre probably had as strong a supporting cast as any QB in the NFL with Minnesota two years ago.
On the other hand, I don't want to pretend Favre wasn't a superb QB. He was. But oh my god, he was maddening. I always used to think, back in the mid-90's, that Brent would get better and better as he matured and started to make better decisions. But he never did.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
To which Deanna says, welcome to my world.
[QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.
HOFer
Yeah...I could perhaps give you Robert Brooks as being better than Nelson. It's at least debatable. If Nelson just catches a couple of those tosses he dropped, he could've had 11-12 catches for 200+ yards in the Super Bowl...with a busted bursa sac in the 4th quarter. Those are epic numbers. Nelson's postseason production was every bit as much of a breakout as Rodgers' IMO. The main issue with Brooks was that the guy couldn't stay healthy, which always factors in for me. He had one monster season (when he stayed healthy) but didn't have more than 60 catches any other year. If a guy can't stay on the field, I have to consider that in a comparison even if he was more talented than someone else who was more reliable.
Freeman? Nah. Freeman never impressed me. The guy made a living off the fact that Favre could throw a laser beam between 3 defenders..which was often necessary because Freeman had trouble getting separation. He put up big numbers because there wasn't much else for Favre to throw to in the late 90s. Despite playing with Favre in his prime...a lot of it as the #1 WR...he only managed to exceed 75 catches twice and 1000 yards thrice. Respectable numbers...but as the #1 option in Favre's MVP years I would expect a truly great WR to do better. Driver has been able to do that consistently even as a #2 option behind Walker and Jennings.
It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!
HOFer
So true. I wonder how much had to do with Holmgren leaving. Favre's mental development seemed to nosedive once Holmgren departed.
The great thing is that I actually feel confident that Rodgers will only continue to improve...especially with McCarthy as coach. McCarthy is an excellent QB coach...the development of Flynn really confirms that for me.
It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!
I disagree with you on just about everything, friday. I'm with Harvey here. Favre had some damn good weapons too. That's one of the things a bunch of us were happy about when he left; the rest of the team would finally get credit. For so many years there were crowds of people just like you who said Favre made other players careers. It's just not the case. Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman, Rison, Chumura, Driver, Walker, Jennings, Rice, Ahman Green, Levens, Adrian Peterson, good-great OL's for his entire career except 2005-2007. . . . All of these guys were damn good football players. Let's not try to hype Favre up and credit him for other players careers. You're not going to find many here who buy that.
I would say it the opposite way. The one year Favre won the SB, it had dominant STs, dominant defense and a rock solid running game. McCarren said that 96 team was much stronger than this 2010 team. Anyone with a football sense would agree. That team was complete. Rodgers did what Favre could never do and that's carry an offense on his back to win a SB, and without good ST's. What Rodgers accomplished this year, that was bigger than anything Brett Favre did in his entire career. I think AR is the better player even if he doesn't accumulate the regular season stats over as long of a career.
Last edited by RashanGary; 02-12-2011 at 10:07 PM.
Favre didn't even play particularly well the entire post season the Packers won the Super Bowl. My dad and I rewatched his old taped playoff games a few weeks ago and Favre was downright awful in some of the games.
You must think of lot more of Schroeder than I do. I thought he was closer to Swain than a starting caliber WR. Marginal #3 at best IMO Agree Jordy is not better than the other three.
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
YES !
GO Aaron Rogders !
GO PACKERS in 2011
** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau
Solid post JH and accurate analysis.
Good points ...TRUTH.
GO PACKERS !
** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau
The "gunslinger" mentality is exciting, fun to watch and will occasionally result in a stunning, unbelievable win. It also results in heartbreaking losses. In the long run of a playoff march when teams are evenly matched, games are close and wins must be strung together, the stunning wins and heartbreaks tend to cancel themselves, and of course the heartbreaks lead to a playoff exit.
The cool, steady play of a tactician at QB is often less exciting, and seldom heart-breaking. The performance is usually not appreciated on a play-by-play basis, but collectively at the end of the game by the accumulation of plays.
It is easier to string together playoff wins with a tactician because of his steadiness and reliability. It is more difficult to string together playoff wins with a gunslinger because of his crippling mistakes and uneven play. You can scheme your offense for the play of a tactician because you know what he will do, you can not for the gunslinger because you are never sure what he will do in a given situation.
In the end, an ultimate gunslinger might win you a championship, but a tactical perfectionist can bring repeated championships. The Packers have seen the results of both with Starr as a tactical genius at QB and Favre as the ultimate gunslinger. It's too early to tell, but Rodgers looks like a unique combination of the two who can distinguish between the less risky plays and more risky plays recognized by the gunslinger, and complete the first while avoiding the second.
I'd also put Skip Clueless in with Cowherd. :-p
you can't do it without weapons and bf was loaded (no pun intended) during his mvp years.
I don't think Robert Brooks ever went against a team's #3 or #4 corner.
The numbers could have been "epic" but everything's skewed. We are a matchup-based offense, not as much of a traditional, lineup and beat the guy in front of you offense. Jordy didn't have those numbers because he was the absolute best WR on the field. He had those numbers because the difference in skill between him and the player he matched up against was the highest out of all matchups on the field - and MM was willing to exploit that.
That does speak a lot to Jordy's talent but it also says just as much about the CBs he was up against (and none of that was a secret leading up to XLV).
And saying Brooks was basically Jennings? Are you then saying that Jordy is better than Jennings?
Jennings made every play he needed to. Big time clutch at big time moments. Jordy's SB was a product of opportunity.
I understand the criticism of Brooks career as short compared to Driver or Jennings and that Freeman was truly great for 2 or 3 seasons (I cannot see how you could fail to be impressed with his stretch starting from the 96 Super Bowl year through 1999).
But in your original argument, you asked about Favre's MVP years, so the short careers of his targets doesn't really come into play, do they?
In 1995, Brooks had an All-Pro year and the Packer offense was as lethal as it would get during the Holmgren era. Bennett and Levens combine for 100 catches and Chmura and Jackson total 67 for 8 TDs.
In 1996, I think the offense took a step back because of injuries and succeeded in scoring more because of fantastic defense and special teams. That team had more short fields to work with than any other outfit I have ever seen. Imagine the recent Super Bowl field position for an entire 19 games. Chmura and Jackson combine for 68 catches and 10 TDs. Freeman misses time with a broken arm and gets 56 catches for 9 TDs. Beebe goes for 39 and 18 yards a catch. Bennett/Levens/Henderson get 89 catches and 7 TDs. And then the pupu platter of Mickens/Rison/Mayes/Howard trying to replace Brooks who was at 23 catches for 15 yards a pop before injury.
In 1997, Freeman (81 and 12), Brooks (60 and 7 at 17 ypc), Levens/Henderson (94 and 6) and Chmura and Thomasen (47 and 7). There wasn't much of a third wideout as Beebe got hurt and Mickens and Mayes were eh.
All in all, not Rice and Taylor, but in 2 years he arguably had a Pro Bowl/All Pro at WR, TE and RB catching passes.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
i think you're 100% correct there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
