More Crap from ESPN

[K-town]

From ESPN Insider Jeremy Green's Friday chat:

Sean (Washburn WI): Jeremy, do you see the Pack contending for the north title this year?

Jeremy Green: I though Green Bay had an exccellent draft. One more like that plus a year of Free Agency will put them in the mix, IF and this is a big IF Rodgers can develop.

Heather (Indy): This probably isn't a popular opinion given Favre's popularity, but doesn't it actually hurt the Packers development that he is playing this year. Rogers won't get the playing time he needs, and the current Packers aren't ready to contend. Green Bay needs to know what it has in Aaron Rogers.

Jeremy Green: I would agree with that 1000%. People in the organization flat out have told me that Thompson and McCarthy did not want him to come back. They could never portray it like that in Green Bay though because in Wisconsin that can get you run out of town.

I'm going to start saving comments like this, and posting them (got a couple from SI I'll be putting up). After the 2006 season, a lot of people are going to owe Brett Favre and Green Bay a GOLD-PLATED apology.
I can't wait to see these annoying little jack-offs eat a huge helping of crow.

[chain_gang]

Yeah listening to their predictions in the offseason usually give you more hope. About every year their Super Bowl favorite never ends up winning it, and most teams they say are sleepers are usually just that sleeping all through the season to crappy season.

[Rastak]

Yeah listening to their predictions in the offseason usually give you more hope. About every year their Super Bowl favorite never ends up winning it, and most teams they say are sleepers are usually just that sleeping all through the season to crappy season.

Hey I agree and said as much a number of times. Having Rodgers take over this year makes quite a bit of sense. McCarthy has a three year contract. If I were him I'd start the rebuilding right now with the QB of the future while I develop the 12 guys I just had drafted.


But that's just me....

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't buy it. Sitting on the bench for a couple of years is the best way for a young kid to come in the league, so this is GOOD for the development of Rodgers. Plus, I think McCarthy needs to get off to a good start. If he can pull off something close to an 8-8 season, suddenly people (nationally and locally) will buy into what he's doing. Kind of like Sherman's first year. Rhodes' team went 8-8, and Green Bay looked to be sliding. Sherman came in and when the team won those last 4 games to finish 9-7, it gave him some momentum and credibility for his regime.

[Rastak]

I don't buy it. Sitting on the bench for a couple of years is the best way for a young kid to come in the league, so this is GOOD for the development of Rodgers. Plus, I think McCarthy needs to get off to a good start. If he can pull off something close to an 8-8 season, suddenly people (nationally and locally) will buy into what he's doing. Kind of like Sherman's first year. Rhodes' team went 8-8, and Green Bay looked to be sliding. Sherman came in and when the team won those last 4 games to finish 9-7, it gave him some momentum and credibility for his regime.


I respect your opinion. To me, 1 year is enough for a 1st round pick to sit.
If Rodgers is learning the ropes under fire in year two and he stumbles, McCarthy will be under some heat. Anyway, it's a moot point. Favre is back so we'll see what happens.

[MadtownPacker]

Hey I agree and said as much a number of times. Having Rodgers take over this year makes quite a bit of sense. McCarthy has a three year contract. If I were him I'd start the rebuilding right now with the QB of the future while I develop the 12 guys I just had drafted.


But that's just me....
They are building to the future. Isnt Rodgers already on the team? For a while at that. Does it really harm him to sit for 2 years?

I think it is building the right way. Instead of rushing it, it is being allowed to set and dry. By the time Rodgers has to start he will have adjusted to the game. He will have many advantage to succeed that he wouldnt have had as a rookie. The D doesnt need him to develop and if the D is good by the time he starts he will have it even better.

Are the vikings gonna start that QB they drafted? :idea:

[chain_gang]

You make an interesting point Rastak, but if you put Rodger's in right now with a younger team and he fails his confidence will be shatter ala Joey Harrington in Detroit, Akili Smith in Cincy, and so on. However, if you start Favre a veteran QB, with the young players on offense this year they get a proven leader to look up to and work with while they gain experience, and confidence. Therefore next year or whenever Favre hangs it up you have a more experienced group of players that know the offense, and the makes the Rodgers transition period more smooth. Now with any first year starter you have bumps in the road, but they should be minimal by having players that have been in the system for a few years that also have some talent.

[Joemailman]

If you include Rodgers' last year of college ball, he is now learning his third offensive system in as many years. It would have been very tough for him to be a starter under those conditions. The current situation is perfect for Rodgers' development. When the time comes for him to get his chance, he will be ready.

[MJZiggy]

From what I've read, it almost seems like M3 took M2's playbook, cut it in half and handed it out. I hear it's a much simpler program, but the terminology is different. Either way, I've also read that teams receive the best results from QB development when a new QB sits as a rookie with very few reps, has some reps his second year and then takes over in year 3. Gives him a chance to learn and gain confidence before you put the whole offense on his shoulders.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Restak is full of shit. I think he is spiteful that Favre is coming back. I would be too, If I was alive 27 years ago and a packer fan, and Fran Tarkenton kept coming back I would be pissed as well.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Mark Brunell - drafted in 1993, sat for 2 years, started full-time for Jacksonville his 3rd year and he was ready. He played well.

Aaron Brooks - drafted in 1999, sat for most of 2 years, started full-time for New Orleans his 3rd year and he was ready. He played well.

Matt Hasselbeck - drafted in 1998, sat for 3 years, started full-time for Seattle his 4th year. He struggled his first year, but was solid in his 5th year in the league.

Let's be honest here, Rodgers isn't blessed with some of the talent that guys like Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, and Brett Favre had coming into the league. He's going to need to have things be right around him and he's going to have to feel comfortable to succeed.

Would it bother you if Minnesota went 8-8 or worse this year, and Brad Johnson started over Tarvaris Jackson next year?

[Bretsky]

I think Restak is full of shit. I think he is spiteful that Favre is coming back. I would be too, If I was alive 27 years ago and a packer fan, and Fran Tarkenton kept coming back I would be pissed as well.

I don't think Rastak is spiteful; he just believes GB has no chance to win a Super Bowl in the next few years even if Favre stays. So if that is true, then throwing Rodgers into the fire might benefit GB.

I don't believe that; but many do.

[Rastak]

I think Restak is full of shit. I think he is spiteful that Favre is coming back. I would be too, If I was alive 27 years ago and a packer fan, and Fran Tarkenton kept coming back I would be pissed as well.

Hey Nutz, NP with your opinion. However you ARE full of shit as to how I feel old buddy. I'm actually quite happy he came back....let the games begin. I'm only commenting on the McCarthy regime and what this means. And it's just my opinion, I know I could be wrong.

[Rastak]

You make an interesting point Rastak, but if you put Rodger's in right now with a younger team and he fails his confidence will be shatter ala Joey Harrington in Detroit, Akili Smith in Cincy, and so on.

A valid point.....the team will be pretty young....

[Rastak]

Mark Brunell - drafted in 1993, sat for 2 years, started full-time for Jacksonville his 3rd year and he was ready. He played well.

Aaron Brooks - drafted in 1999, sat for most of 2 years, started full-time for New Orleans his 3rd year and he was ready. He played well.

Matt Hasselbeck - drafted in 1998, sat for 3 years, started full-time for Seattle his 4th year. He struggled his first year, but was solid in his 5th year in the league.

Let's be honest here, Rodgers isn't blessed with some of the talent that guys like Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, and Brett Favre had coming into the league. He's going to need to have things be right around him and he's going to have to feel comfortable to succeed.

Would it bother you if Minnesota went 8-8 or worse this year, and Brad Johnson started over Tarvaris Jackson next year?


I'd be bothered that they went 8-8...LOL, but I look at a Div IAA QB as a two year project. If he isn't starting in year three I have an issue. If he were a highly touted Div IA QB I'd want him starting in year two. Just my opinion.

[RashanGary]

I think Restak is full of shit. I think he is spiteful that Favre is coming back. I would be too, If I was alive 27 years ago and a packer fan, and Fran Tarkenton kept coming back I would be pissed as well.

Wow, I couldn't have said it any better. I like Rastak as a person, but lurking Viking fans just piss me off. No offens ras..You're a good shit, I've been to a few Vikings boards and they are all like us but a different team. I just don't like Viking fans sorry.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am just giving you shit. If I was going to seriously argue against your point I would do more than bring up Tark.

There is no way that the Packer Organization doesn't benefit 100% from Favre coming back. One more year to sell #4 jerseys and other Packer merchandise off of Favre's back. Just because there is a salary cap doesn't mean that this team doesn't benefit financially with a player like Favre. Last time I checked there are not to many folks running around with Aaron Rodger jerserys. Not to many nationally televised games coming the Packers way with old #12 taking snaps behind center. The Packers are in the smallest market in the NFL, but yet they are top 5 in merchandising in the league, their popularity is tremendous, and the major reason for that is Brett Favre. Without Favre this franchise would be struggling financially especially with the new Players Deal. Buffalo can't compete in their market, but the Packers can? Why is that?

Now the play on the field. All good points mentioned so far. Rodgers is an ok talent, it was the right year for him to come out, because if he would have waited until his senior year, he probably would have been a second round selection. Rodgers is more athletic then people give him credit for, and he can make all the throws, but there is no need to rush this kid. Culpepper had it easy. he had unbelievable talent around him his second year in the league. Rodgers is going to develop with inexperienced players around him, one more year to allow that experience swell around him is only going to help him.

McCarthy isn't going to be canned before his contract expires. If he shows the fortitude this year with Favre and lead this team to a winning record, he will be all right, and most likely he will get an extension in Rodgers 4th year in the league. Favre coming back is actually a gift to McCarthy, otherwise instead of being the offensive coordinator of the sinking 49ers in 2005, he would be the head coach of the drowned Packers of 2006.

[RashanGary]

Now the play on the field. All good points mentioned so far. Rodgers is an ok talent, it was the right year for him to come out, because if he would have waited until his senior year, he probably would have been a second round selection. Rodgers is more athletic then people give him credit for, and he can make all the throws, but there is no need to rush this kid. Culpepper had it easy. he had unbelievable talent around him his second year in the league. Rodgers is going to develop with inexperienced players around him, one more year to allow that experience swell around him is only going to help him.



Great point. The offense is really young and Favre can handle the heat because of his experience. This buys Rodgers a year to develop the young team around him and give him a shot.

McCarthy just bought some time because Favre will win us some games and take the heat off him.

Thompson just felt the flame sizzle out a bit when Favre came back. He would have been getting extreme heat had Rodgers lost a bunch of games which would be probable without Favre.

This was the best for everyone invlolved, no question in my mind.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd be bothered that they went 8-8...LOL, but I look at a Div IAA QB as a two year project. If he isn't starting in year three I have an issue. If he were a highly touted Div IA QB I'd want him starting in year two. Just my opinion.

I don't buy that crap. They wouldn't have taken him in the second round if he was that much of a project. He started more games in college at the Div 1 level than Aaron Rodgers did.

The Packers may not be good this year, but I really don't see the Vikings being much better than 8-8, so don't be surprised when they are right around that again this year. Take away their 2 last second wins over an injury depleted, 4-12 Packers team and their win against the Bears second string and they are a 6-7 team. Hutchinson is a great pickup, but they still have a ton of question marks (RG, RT, WR, DE, MLB, CB, S). That doesn't even count Birk at OC (who knows if he'll stay healthy) and Johnson at QB (he seldom makes it through a season healthy enough to play 16 games and now he's 37 years old).

Vikes
Points scored: 19.1/game
Total yards: 288.3/game
Sacks allowed: 34
Points allowed: 21.5/game
Yards allowed: 323.3/game

Packers
Points scored: 18.6/game
Total yards: 319.9/game
Points allowed: 21.5/game
Yards allowed: 293.1/game

I really don't see much of a difference in talent level between the teams when everyone is healthy. It's been that way for about 3 years. Injuries were a big difference last year. Green Bay won some close games over the Vikings the two years before that, so that gave them the advantage.

[esoxx]

[quote="Rastak
I'm actually quite happy he came back....[/quote]


As a Viking fan, why would you be happy he came back? Unless you think he's a washed up has been.

[Rastak]

[quote="Rastak
I'm actually quite happy he came back....


As a Viking fan, why would you be happy he came back? Unless you think he's a washed up has been.[/quote]


You could be on the right track there esoxx......

[Rastak]

I'd be bothered that they went 8-8...LOL, but I look at a Div IAA QB as a two year project. If he isn't starting in year three I have an issue. If he were a highly touted Div IA QB I'd want him starting in year two. Just my opinion.

I don't buy that crap. They wouldn't have taken him in the second round if he was that much of a project. He started more games in college at the Div 1 level than Aaron Rodgers did.

The Packers may not be good this year, but I really don't see the Vikings being much better than 8-8, so don't be surprised when they are right around that again this year. Take away their 2 last second wins over an injury depleted, 4-12 Packers team and their win against the Bears second string and they are a 6-7 team. Hutchinson is a great pickup, but they still have a ton of question marks (RG, RT, WR, DE, MLB, CB, S). That doesn't even count Birk at OC (who knows if he'll stay healthy) and Johnson at QB (he seldom makes it through a season healthy enough to play 16 games and now he's 37 years old).

Vikes
Points scored: 19.1/game
Total yards: 288.3/game
Sacks allowed: 34
Points allowed: 21.5/game
Yards allowed: 323.3/game

Packers
Points scored: 18.6/game
Total yards: 319.9/game
Points allowed: 21.5/game
Yards allowed: 293.1/game

I really don't see much of a difference in talent level between the teams when everyone is healthy. It's been that way for about 3 years. Injuries were a big difference last year. Green Bay won some close games over the Vikings the two years before that, so that gave them the advantage.



Hey buy it or don't buy it. I don't think they (or I) believe he'll be ready for two years. Think Aaron Rodgers or Phillip Rivers Harv...... :cool:

[MadtownPacker]

Mark Brunell - drafted in 1993, sat for 2 years, started full-time for Jacksonville his 3rd year and he was ready. He played well.

Aaron Brooks - drafted in 1999, sat for most of 2 years, started full-time for New Orleans his 3rd year and he was ready. He played well.

Matt Hasselbeck - drafted in 1998, sat for 3 years, started full-time for Seattle his 4th year. He struggled his first year, but was solid in his 5th year in the league.

Let's be honest here, Rodgers isn't blessed with some of the talent that guys like Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, and Brett Favre had coming into the league. He's going to need to have things be right around him and he's going to have to feel comfortable to succeed.

Would it bother you if Minnesota went 8-8 or worse this year, and Brad Johnson started over Tarvaris Jackson next year?As usually I agree with my homey-on-wheels.

You might have to add Nall to that list next season too!

[falco]

I hope M3 has the guts to bench Favre if he still shows his lack of discipline this year...

But can you imagine if they kept him from starting? The fans would go wild.

[Tarlam!]

My hope is that A-Rod sits for 2 more years. And, I hope we see Nall playing. I wanna see what we gave up.

[BlueBrewer]

I hope M3 has the guts to bench Favre if he still shows his lack of discipline this year...

But can you imagine if they kept him from starting? The fans would go wild.

He doesn't need to bench him he just needs to change the approach when he is struggling. That is what this offense is all about. Short quick confidence building passes that piss off the D until they cheat up and then you can burn them.

[Scott Campbell]

Rodgers is not going to sit solely because it's part of his development plan. He can't beat Brett out for the job at this point - it's not even close.

[chain_gang]

Even if Rodgers could beat out Favre, we would never see Rodgers starting ahead of Favre.

[Scott Campbell]

Even if Rodgers could beat out Favre, we would never see Rodgers starting ahead of Favre.

I'm old school, and believe you would. I'd sit Favre if Rodgers was playing better. This is football, and that's the only explanation required.

[Tarlam!]

Even if Rodgers could beat out Favre, we would never see Rodgers starting ahead of Favre.

This is bull.

If Rodgers beat out Favre, Favre might still start game 1. But, if Favre wasn't winning, they would send in a guy that stood a better chance. Favre is not above winning. He is not above the team. He has not been issued with a license to be mediocre.

He'd be the 1st person to tell you that.

[chain_gang]

I agree Scott, and I'm sure Rodgers can't beat out Favre there's also probably 25 other QBs that couldn't beat out Favre. I really think though if Rodgers had the greatest preseason and TC ever, he wouldn't see the starting job. Whether it's because of the game experience or Favre's legacy. I just think that Green Bay tends to hold onto the past too long sometimes. Not saying Rodgers should be the starter at all, but even if he was ready he will never see the field while Favre is playing.

[Tarlam!]

This regimé is all about winning. You will not see M3 procrastinating on the sidelines in the 4th quarter if Brett has been picked 3 times. You will see A-Rod trotting into the huddle.

Next game, you will see a different Favre come out of the shoot. He'll be 10 years younger and have fire in his eyes.

[chain_gang]

Every regime is about winning, but in the end they will leave Favre in no matter how bad it gets. Seen it with Sherman, Rhodes, and Holmgren. Holmgren threatend to sit him a few times, and maybe that would be enough. With that said I don't see Favre having too many 3 int games this year. More 3TD games.

[Scott Campbell]

Every regime is about winning, but in the end they will leave Favre in no matter how bad it gets.


They've never had a QB on the roster that beat Brett out. Except for Majik.

[Tarlam!]

...in the end they will leave Favre in no matter how bad it gets. Seen it with Sherman, Rhodes, and Holmgren. Holmgren threatend to sit him a few times, and maybe that would be enough....

That was a different Favre. That guy was the future of the team and benching him might have robbed his confidence. No, if Favre has a mental lapse this year, first year HC M3 will substitute him - especially if they're playing away.

[Charles Woodson]

Even if Rodgers could beat out Favre, we would never see Rodgers starting ahead of Favre.

This is bull.

If Rodgers beat out Favre, Favre might still start game 1. But, if Favre wasn't winning, they would send in a guy that stood a better chance. Favre is not above winning. He is not above the team. He has not been issued with a license to be mediocre.

He'd be the 1st person to tell you that.

Yea, im starting to agree with you. i mean its not sherman any more that didnt have the ballz to do that. If that thing about they didnt want Favre coming back is true, then TT and MM will use the first thing they see bad to sit favre

[Badgepack]

I think Favre is going to come in with an attitude to shut up all the people saying he is done. Kinda like his "bet against me" attitude. He really only had the one bad season for crying out loud. With a much better defense, and hopefully a better offense, Favre will not feel he has to win every game with his arm.

He will have a good year, and AR will watch and learn from one of the best of all time.

[MadtownPacker]

He doesn't need to bench him he just needs to change the approach when he is struggling. That is what this offense is all about. Short quick confidence building passes that piss off the D until they cheat up and then you can burn them.
Great post! This was really the problem last season. Favre trying to score a TD on one pass. Play call? Chuck it in the endzone of course.

M3's O is gonna be just what the doc ordered for the aging gunslinger.

[Joemailman]

I hope M3 has the guts to bench Favre if he still shows his lack of discipline this year...

But can you imagine if they kept him from starting? The fans would go wild.

He doesn't need to bench him he just needs to change the approach when he is struggling. That is what this offense is all about. Short quick confidence building passes that piss off the D until they cheat up and then you can burn them.


I saw an interview with Holmgren where he said he knew he couldn't change Favre's gun-slinger mentality. Therefore, what he would try to do was call plays designed to keep risks at a minimum. That is what McCarthy will do. Lots of slant patterns and screens, with an occasional deep ball to keep the defense honest. It used to amaze me how wide open guys like Sharpe and Brooks could get on deep patterns once you had the defense looking for the short stuff.

[BlueBrewer]

I hope M3 has the guts to bench Favre if he still shows his lack of discipline this year...

But can you imagine if they kept him from starting? The fans would go wild.

He doesn't need to bench him he just needs to change the approach when he is struggling. That is what this offense is all about. Short quick confidence building passes that piss off the D until they cheat up and then you can burn them.


I saw an interview with Holmgren where he said he knew he couldn't change Favre's gun-slinger mentality. Therefore, what he would try to do was call plays designed to keep risks at a minimum. That is what McCarthy will do. Lots of slant patterns and screens, with an occasional deep ball to keep the defense honest. It used to amaze me how wide open guys like Sharpe and Brooks could get on deep patterns once you had the defense looking for the short stuff.

EXACTLY

[No Mo Moss]

see story.