PDA

View Full Version : Favre-less Pack in good hands with Rodgers



HarveyWallbangers
03-04-2008, 01:07 PM
We need some positivity. Of course, Iyer was the one guy who picked the Packers to do well last year, so maybe he's a closet Packers fan.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Avdwo1wYm49n2mfC2Nt4uLL.uLYF?slug=favrel esspackingoodhands&prov=tsn&type=lgns

The Green Bay Packers have lost a Hall of Fame quarterback but might not lose a beat.

It’s impossible to replace Brett Favre’s personality, but replacing Favre the quarterback is not as tough as you might think. Heir apparent Aaron Rodgers’ playing style and talent better fit coach Mike McCarthy’s offense.

It certainly will be easier to convince the much younger Rodgers to not take as many gunslinger’s chances in throwing downfield. He will be called upon to the spread the ball around in the passing game, playing wisely off the running game.

Rodgers will have trouble matching the pure passion of Favre—which current NFL quarterback can, really?—he has the skill set and enough time and “experience” to keep Green Bay’s offense humming.

Whether intentional or not, Rodgers’ three years riding the bench worked out for the best—for him and for the team.

In the 2005 draft, there was a debate as to which was the best quarterback prospect, Utah’s Alex Smith or Cal’s Rodgers. The answer came quickly, at least considering how the teams selected in the first round: Smith went No. 1 overall to the San Francisco 49ers and Rodgers slid to No. 24 to the Packers. Green Bay officials surely didn’t know Favre would play three more seasons, but it did allow the team time to properly groom Rodgers.

Smith has taken a lot of lumps in three seasons as the San Francisco starter because of a limited supporting cast and an ever-revolving door of offensive coordinators. Meanwhile, Rodgers has remained mostly a mystery, sitting and waiting and learning behind Favre. It remains a big question whether he can lead the Packers and guide them that one final step—to the Super Bowl.

As a rookie in ‘05, Rodgers’ only action came from mopping up in two blowouts, a 52-3 Packers win over the New Orleans Saints and a 48-3 Packers loss to the Baltimore Ravens. Nothing to see there, really.

In ‘06, it was more mopping up, first against the Philadelphia Eagles and second against the New England Patriots in a 35-0 loss. In that second appearance, Rodgers completed only 4-of-12 passes before breaking his left foot. Already, even as just a backup, he wasn’t as durable as Favre.

Then came hope in ‘07. All that time watching Favre conduct the Packers’ offense paid off for Rodgers, who wasn’t getting physically, mentally and emotionally battered like Smith.

In the Packers’ biggest regular-season game, on Thursday night against the Dallas Cowboys in Week 13, Favre was knocked out in the second quarter with an injured right elbow and a separated left shoulder. Rodgers had to play—and play well—to give the Packers a chance on the road.

Rodgers was impressive, although Dallas still won, 37-27. Rodgers looked the part of a starter in a West Coast-tinged offense. Thrust into pass-happy mode with the Packers trailing, he faced the Cowboys’ merciless 3-4 pass rush and showed good poise, mobility and efficiency and even displaying his strong downfield arm.

With that confidence, Rodgers is in position to pick up where Favre left off. Sure, it’s just one game. However, the key with a young quarterback is showing improvement over not-too-long of a stretch, that’s what Rodgers has done.

Rodgers also has a talented young team around him, and he won’t have to light up the scoreboard. The Packers have a solid all-around defense with top-flight playmakers such as Aaron Kampman and Nick Barnett and A.J. Hawk.

Offensively, the reason Favre finished his career on such a high note was the performance of some promising young receivers and a young running back. Greg Jennings emerged to join Pro Bowler Donald Driver as a big-time threat all over the field, and No. 3 receiver James Jones and tight end Donald Lee also were critical to the Packers’ success. Newfound feature back Ryan Grant looks like the real deal with his cut-and-go running meshing with the team’s zone-blocking scheme.

There is work to be done in solidifying the offensive line, getting a healthy third-down back and adding insurance in the form of a backup quarterback. For the past decade and a half, their No. 2 quarterback wasn’t all that important—Doug Pederson, anyone?—because the club was spoiled by Favre’s ridiculous durability. Rodgers has an unproven health record, and general manager Ted Thompson would be wise to add a veteran behind him. Craig Nall is not the answer, and he is a free agent, anyway.

The Packers enjoyed multiple waves of success over the past 16 years because they had stability at the game’s most important position. No one expects Rodgers to start the next 275 games, but he is well prepared to maintain the Packers’ status as Super Bowl contender.

Deputy Nutz
03-04-2008, 01:29 PM
I agree with this article.

Harlan Huckleby
03-04-2008, 01:31 PM
I'm looking forward to next year to see how Arod will do. I think it will be more exciting than if Favre came back. That could change quickly. :lol:

hoosier
03-04-2008, 01:32 PM
I'm convinced that Rodgers has the skill and temperment to step in and do at least a competent job, and maybe much more than competent. But for someone to play in a total of 5 regular season games in 3 years and suffer two injuries that are significant enough to cause him to miss games, that worries me. I hope they can find a competent veteran backup.

wpony
03-04-2008, 01:55 PM
This article is right on and I agree with getting a good veteran back up QB

Beav
03-04-2008, 02:17 PM
http://www.realwisconsinnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=34

I disagree. Without Favre, the Packers take a large step back. People who think this is not a huge setback have to realize there is a reason the Packers won more games than any other team in the NFL since Favre took over, and it's more Favre than everything else together.

Rogers won't be a bad QB, but he is injury prone. In 2008, just squeeking into the playoffs will be good, but they are not a Superbowl contender again for awhile.

Thompson made a huge mistake not adding a couple vets to help Favre out. Very Jerry Krausesque, how did pushing Michael Jordan work for the Bulls.

HarveyWallbangers
03-04-2008, 02:25 PM
Is that you, tank?

Valid points. We don't know how it will shake out, but teams have won after losing their superstar QBs. The NFC North is still looking down. Those are a couple of things working in our favor. Also, I've seen enough out of Rodgers the last couple of years to think he has a shot at being a Matt Hasselbeck quality QB, and that may be good enough for this team. There's a lot of young talent that Thompson has acquired in a short amount of time. It likely won't work out, but it can.

The Jerry Krause reference isn't valid. Comparing the NBA to the NFL is like comparing apples to oranges. In the NBA, you are MUCH more dependent on one player to win a championship. In the NBA, if you surround a superstar with an All-Star and good role players, and you can win. The NFL works differently. Brett's an all-time great and they've won one title with him.

Brohm
03-04-2008, 02:26 PM
I don't think they were pushing Brett out. I mean...13-3, with young players. Would it have been a better 13-3 if we had old aging guys? Moss pretty much said screw you guys, as did a lot of FA. I am sure they will be fine though on the Raiders/49ers. Hell Justin Smith did not even want to visit GB.

motife
03-04-2008, 02:31 PM
there will be some rough spots, but I'm excited about Rodgers.

The two things I'm worried about it his ability to make the big throw, and his durability. He's not going to have a 16 year unbroken string of starts if the last 2 seasons are any indication.

The Leaper
03-04-2008, 03:25 PM
I'm excited about Rodgers...but I agree there is a HUGE step back in 2008. The experience gap between Favre and Rodgers is nothing to sneeze at.

Favre won at least 4 or 5 games on the strength of his knowledge and capacity to make reads at the LOS last year. Can Rodgers accomplish that? Unlikely.

Injuries were also almost a non-factor on offense last year. I can't expect that to happen again in 2008.

I think 2008 is a learning experience for Rodgers. I don't think he'll flop, but he'll have struggles as all young QBs do. I expect things to be brighter in 2009 and beyond.

Packerarcher
03-04-2008, 07:12 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again. That pansy ass ARod WILL go down with a hang nail or some bogus injury before his fifth start. We will definately need a good back up. I would like nothing better than for Rodgers to prove me wrong and to take the Pack all the way. But that ain't gonna happen.

Rastak
03-04-2008, 07:21 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again. That pansy ass ARod WILL go down with a hang nail or some bogus injury before his fifth start. We will definately need a good back up. I would like nothing better than for Rodgers to prove me wrong and to take the Pack all the way. But that ain't gonna happen.


You don't know that. The guy has ZERO starts in the NFL.....teams have spent the entire week preparing for the guy ZERO times.


I thought he looked pretty good in the Dallas game, I thought he looked pretty bad some of the other times I've seen him in relief. I think he could be ok. He's had a few years as an understudy which should help alot. You'll find out this fall if he's up to the task.

b bulldog
03-04-2008, 07:44 PM
At Brett's age, he could have struggled next season, I doubt he would have but you don't know.

RashanGary
03-04-2008, 09:23 PM
Right now, I'm just happy to move on but if we flounder without a QB and TT and the next GM's can't find one for a couple decades I might turn into one of the doom and gloomers.

Bretsky
03-04-2008, 09:25 PM
Right now, I'm just happy to move on but if we flounder without a QB and TT and the next GM's can't find one for a couple decades I might turn into one of the doom and gloomers.


Truly TT's team now; I hope he only looks for youth in free agency if he plays in the game at all and I hope he stockpiles draft picks like he has in the past.

Where before I was a win now guy, now I'm a win in 3-5 years guy.

falco
03-04-2008, 10:01 PM
Right now, I'm just happy to move on but if we flounder without a QB and TT and the next GM's can't find one for a couple decades I might turn into one of the doom and gloomers.


Truly TT's team now; I hope he only looks for youth in free agency if he plays in the game at all and I hope he stockpiles draft picks like he has in the past.

Where before I was a win now guy, now I'm a win in 3-5 years guy.

B, if we're lucky you're right. it could be 1992 all over again. I'd like nothing more than see Rodgers grow with these team and get us closer to the big game year after year. as long as we keep taking steps forward i'll be happy, but this year will be the new baseline year for us to measure by.

Brohm
03-04-2008, 10:38 PM
I am not expecting a 13-3 season, but I do expect us to be above .500 (~10-6) while ARod takes over and gains experience. This is a very young team with loads of room to grow. Favre and Rob Davis are by far the oldest players. With Farve retired and Davis being a LS specialist, that is some serious youth. However, some youth that has gotten a lot of on the job training and is poised to starting taking on some leadership roles in the near future.

A small step backwards (and some even question that) but I am willing to bet a lot of huge leaps are going to be made soon. Lock some of those guys up TT....

VegasPackFan
03-04-2008, 11:23 PM
I am also seriously concerned about Rodgers and his so far "softness" in getting hurt in very limited game play. Get used to seeing two or three starters each season for a while.

Pacopete4
03-04-2008, 11:25 PM
thats exactly why we need to draft a guy this draft in about the 5-6th round.. we need to start grooming a guy incase rodgers does not pan out or for exactly that reason of Rodgers will not have the favre streak, it just doesnt happen