Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

[Patler]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

[Charles Woodson]

Could go ethier way. Brett's shit sure isn't helping the situation though.

[The Leaper]

Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Perhaps.

But it is highly unlikely a green as grass Rodgers is going to get the Packers to a home playoff game in January...so putting the cart in front of the horse in that regard seems kind of dumb.

Favre threw one bad toss against the Giants. He also played just as well as Manning in the rest of the game, especially considering Favre had no running game supporting him. He played incredibly well the week before in cold weather...clearly not bitterly cold like the NFCC game.

The difference wasn't Favre/Manning...it was the Giants OL compared to our OL. They could pound the ball down our throats...and we couldn't manage to gain a yard.

[sheepshead]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

duh?

[Patler]

But it is highly unlikely a green as grass Rodgers is going to get the Packers to a home playoff game in January...so putting the cart in front of the horse in that regard seems kind of dumb.


Maybe they just have a lot of faith in the strength of the rest of the team. Maybe they think Rodgers is good enough that he will not cause them to lose, and the team is good enough that they will not need Favre to win.

[Patler]

The difference wasn't Favre/Manning...it was the Giants OL compared to our OL. They could pound the ball down our throats...and we couldn't manage to gain a yard.

Can't the same be said for the difference in the Seattle/GB game? GB ran consistently and extremely well the entire game. Seattle didn't.

Maybe Rodgers would have achieved no worse results in either game.

[The Leaper]

Maybe they just have a lot of faith in the strength of the rest of the team.

Again...the same team that fell apart against the Giants just as much, and probably more, than Favre did?

I don't see the logic here as being very sound. If you took a poll of all NFL GMs on this situation...just asking them who was the better option for GB at QB in 2008, the overwhelming choice would be Favre. They would LAUGH at the notion that Rodgers is a better choice having no experience. These GMs try to get by with QBs like Tavaris Jackson or Rex Grossman or Mark Brunell or any of the numerous guys that can't even hold a candle to Favre.

If they had a QB of Favre's stature in their system, they'd hold onto him like gold.

Honestly...are some of you actually trying to convince yourself otherwise?

[The Leaper]

Can't the same be said for the difference in the Seattle/GB game? GB ran consistently and extremely well the entire game. Seattle didn't.

C'mon Patler. You know damn well that Favre's leadership in the face of a 14-0 deficit was huge. He took the Packers down the field for a score with his arm doing all the work.

THAT was what really set up the Packer running game in the Seattle game. THAT was what gave the team confidence to rack up 6 straight TD drives.

And no...I don't think Rodgers could provide that kind of leadership under pressure in 2008. Perhaps down the road...but not in 2008.

[packinpatland]

Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Perhaps.

But it is highly unlikely a green as grass Rodgers is going to get the Packers to a home playoff game in January...so putting the cart in front of the horse in that regard seems kind of dumb.

Favre threw one bad toss against the Giants. He also played just as well as Manning in the rest of the game, especially considering Favre had no running game supporting him. He played incredibly well the week before in cold weather...clearly not bitterly cold like the NFCC game.

The difference wasn't Favre/Manning...it was the Giants OL compared to our OL. They could pound the ball down our throats...and we couldn't manage to gain a yard.

And the fact that the play calling seemed to forget who Ryan Grant was....and that we had a running game.

[The Leaper]

And the fact that the play calling seemed to forget who Ryan Grant was....and that we had a running game.

Exactly.

Laying the bulk of the blame on Favre for the loss to the Giants is lunacy. Sure, he deserves plenty of blame for that final throw...it was a turd. But numerous other turds were laid that day well before Favre's final throw...and all contributed to the loss. There were poor coaching decisions, dropped passes, poor blocking...you name it.

Let's be honest...the Packers as a team were not as experienced or mentally tough as the Giants, and it showed.

That is why I can't understand the notion that getting rid of Favre is in the best interest of the team. The team gained a ton of experience in that run last year...and is ready to reload in 2008. So you decide to throw that all away and put an untested QB in to lead them...so we are back to square one?

It makes no sense to me. None.

[Carolina_Packer]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.

[Patler]

C'mon Patler. You know damn well that Favre's leadership in the face of a 14-0 deficit was huge. He took the Packers down the field for a score with his arm doing all the work.

THAT was what really set up the Packer running game in the Seattle game. THAT was what gave the team confidence to rack up 6 straight TD drives.

And no...I don't think Rodgers could provide that kind of leadership under pressure in 2008. Perhaps down the road...but not in 2008.

Naw, the passing game didn't set up the running game, it was already set to go. They had run two plays, picked up 8 on the first and 6 on the second before Grant fumbled in their second possession. Grant had a 4 yard gain on the second play of the first scoring drive. He had carried 3 times for 18 yards and Favre had thrown only 2 passes at that point, the pass on the first possession that Grant fumbled, and one to Jennings on the first play of the scoring drive. Favre only threw three more passes in that drive. He threw just 4 in total in the drive, and three of the 4 completions were more of the "catch and run" variety that others could have thrown.

Favre's leadership was important, but after 16 games as a starter, another talented QB can also be a leader.

[The Leaper]

Naw, the passing game didn't set up the running game, it was already set to go.

True...because of Seattle's undersized front 7.

If we could face that kind of defense outside of their friendly home environment every week of the year, I wouldn't mind making Flynn our starting QB.

Make no mistake...we need a far stronger performance from our OL on a consistent basis to be a true title contender.

[cpk1994]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.

[Patler]

Make no mistake...we need a far stronger performance from our OL on a consistent basis to be a true title contender.

Can't disagree with that at all. And now it looks like we may have to have concerns about the D-line as well, Williams gone, Jolly possible gone or at least distracted, Harrell having back surgery...... How good is Muir?????? :lol:

[The Leaper]

PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.

Well, Green Bay is more than able to welcome him back under the condition that 2008 is the last hurrah, so there would be no need to have to go through this next year.

Also, the rest of the team already knows that Favre is above them. Are they on the cover of Madden? Are they going to have their number retired inside of Lambeau? The notion that this is some communist system in the NFL where everyone is viewed the same is bullshit. Favre is a legend...and with that comes a level of respect and privilege that others guys probably won't get.

It is the same in any other professional profession...it isn't like football is any different from being a doctor or a police man. There are always people at the bottom of the totem pole and people at the top.

Life ain't fair. Get used to it.

[3irty1]

Its a legit thought.

The reasons why Favre is the ultimate Packer go way beyond his production on the field though. Time stands still at Lambeau and things like toughness, leadership, and clutchness are not just buzzwords in Green Bay.

Rodgers seems to be a leader and a great team mate and played great in what might as well have been the super bowl from Aaron's perspective against the Cowboys. He's as good of a future QB as you could ask for but I still think you go with the proven guy. Plus there's something fitting about having to drag Favre off the field after 16 years of seeing how much he loves what he does.

[MadtownPacker]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.Carolina threw down a well thought out post with ways of working things out and all you can do is repeat you tired ass BS and tell him to stick his head in someones ass???

[cpk1994]

PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.

Well, Green Bay is more than able to welcome him back under the condition that 2008 is the last hurrah, so there would be no need to have to go through this next year.

Also, the rest of the team already knows that Favre is above them. Are they on the cover of Madden? Are they going to have their number retired inside of Lambeau? The notion that this is some communist system in the NFL where everyone is viewed the same is bullshit. Favre is a legend...and with that comes a level of respect and privilege that others guys probably won't get.

It is the same in any other professional profession...it isn't like football is any different from being a doctor or a police man. There are always people at the bottom of the totem pole and people at the top.

Life ain't fair. Get used to it.That is elitest BS. THat is plain and simple Brett Favre jock sniffing and ass kissing logic right there. Its is not similar to a Doctor or a policeman. Being a football player requires 52 others to do your job. In other words a TEAM effort. A policeman or a Doctor can to their job by themselvess without help.. Bad comparison.
Regardless of what he has accomplished, no one deserves speical treatment. This is about whats best for the GREEN BAY PACKERS. Whats best for the TEAM, as determined by the people in charge. In running a TEAM, being on the Madden cover makies no fucking dfiierence. Do you think that TT or any GM gives a rats ass who is on that cover? Hell no. In running a TEAM, retiring a RETIRED players number makes no fucking difference. Allowing someone to come back in and take a position after giving it up for retirement, and even after agreeing to give back to him and he changes his mind and refuses a SECOND time, is assinine. You need to quit sniffing Favre's jock. It is leaving you brain damaged.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think you might be onto something, Patler. However, until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy for 16 games, it's a tough opinion to agree with. With Favre, you knew that he'd be there every game--giving you a chance to win. Favre's mannerisms in many of his recent cold weather games had me worried. He used to own cold weather. Recently, it looked like he'd rather be somewhere else.

[cpk1994]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.Carolina threw down a well thought out post with ways of working things out and all you can do is repeat you tired ass BS and tell him to stick his head in someones ass???I told him to get it OUT of Brett's ass not stick it in. And its only tired to those who believe "Lord Favre' can do no wrong and worship at his altar and sniff his jock.

[Carolina_Packer]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.

As well as Brett has been known to rip them, I don't have my head anywhere near there.

It's easy to say, show your toughness TT, be the man, make him sit, blah, blah, blah...guess what? People want to have a great GM, but people don't often wax poetic about what a GM means to a team, unless you are really into GM's vs. players. They are sentimental about players, they wear their jerseys, the follow their careers as the relationship/legacy builds between fans and player. This ain't some washed up guy who can't let it go. If he were Kenny Stabler embarrassing himself with the Saints, I'd be the first one to say I hope he goes, but I don't.

Wanting him back is for a lot of reasons. You look at punishing him for being indecisive and "diva-ish". I think his indecision was inconvenient and likely annoying, and makes it hard to plan, but so what? Hasn't Brett built up enough capital over the years to screw up something and be forgiven? Either you play him because you think he gives you the best chance to win or you trade/release him because you don't. The organization will do what it's inclined to do, but I hope it's neither trade or release. Geez, just be the bigger person, hold out an olive branch and say, this is crazy. Let's just step back from the brink and think about what we are doing. Just because they drew a line in the sand doesn't mean that they can't change their collective minds. I'm sure they are mulling over how this is going to play out for everyone's legacy. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong if to many, many people you are known/perceived as the ones who didn't let Brett come back and play, and couldn't patch things up with him.

If Favre was a washed up guy and the fans knew it, but Brett didn't, well that would be something else. This is a situation that we are in by virtue of having a franchise, all-time HOF'er and I guess that means that we have to live with some of this at the end of his career. Is it fair? Maybe not, but I'll take Brett as a double standard over Rodgers. He's earned more in my bank than Rodgers (and I like Rodgers and think he could be something). Part of it is the history, sure. Part of it is wanting him to play again, but from a purely football standpoint of wins/losses/success, I say bury the hatchet, take a new tact...you don't have to kiss his ass, and you can acknowledge what you haven't liked in all this, but you gotta come up with, we signed you, you can still play, the fans (most) love you as an all-time great and we will not let it go down this way. If Brett's worst crime is indecision and lack of good communication, then forgive him and get him back out there to start. What he's done is not beyond repair, nor should a false line in the sand from management prevent that. See the light on this one, not just to placate Brett or the fans, but as the smartest wins/losses decision you can make. I'd rather err on the side of bringing Brett back and having him lose it and still have Rodgers to take over, rather than making Rodgers the only option now that Brett wants to return.

[3irty1]

I think you might be onto something, Patler. However, until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy for 16 games, it's a tough opinion to agree with. With Favre, you knew that he'd be there every game--giving you a chance to win. Favre's mannerisms in many of his recent cold weather games had me worried. He used to own cold weather. Recently, it looked like he'd rather be somewhere else.

I didn't see anyone else look like they really wanted to be there either. Those were some super cold games. I'm not convinced Favre is a liability in cold weather.

[cpk1994]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.

As well as Brett has been known to rip them, I don't have my head anywhere near there.

It's easy to say, show your toughness TT, be the man, make him sit, blah, blah, blah...guess what? People want to have a great GM, but people don't often wax poetic about what a GM means to a team, unless you are really into GM's vs. players. They are sentimental about players, they wear their jerseys, the follow their careers as the relationship/legacy builds between fans and player. This ain't some washed up guy who can't let it go. If he were Kenny Stabler embarrassing himself with the Saints, I'd be the first one to say I hope he goes, but I don't.

Wanting him back is for a lot of reasons. You look at punishing him for being indecisive and "diva-ish". I think his indecision was inconvenient and likely annoying, and makes it hard to plan, but so what? Hasn't Brett built up enough capital over the years to screw up something and be forgiven? Either you play him because you think he gives you the best chance to win or you trade/release him because you don't. The organization will do what it's inclined to do, but I hope it's neither trade or release. Geez, just be the bigger person, hold out an olive branch and say, this is crazy. Let's just step back from the brink and think about what we are doing. Just because they drew a line in the sand doesn't mean that they can't change their collective minds. I'm sure they are mulling over how this is going to play out for everyone's legacy. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong if to many, many people you are known/perceived as the ones who didn't let Brett come back and play, and couldn't patch things up with him.

If Favre was a washed up guy and the fans knew it, but Brett didn't, well that would be something else. This is a situation that we are in by virtue of having a franchise, all-time HOF'er and I guess that means that we have to live with some of this at the end of his career. Is it fair? Maybe not, but I'll take Brett as a double standard over Rodgers. He's earned more in my bank than Rodgers. Part of it is the history, sure. Part of it is wanting him to play again, but from a purely football standpoint of wins/losses/success, I say bury the hatchet, take a new tact...you don't have to kiss his ass, and you can acknowledge what you haven't liked in all this, but you gotta come up with, we signed you, you can still play, the fans (most) love you as an all-time great and we will not let it go down this way. If Brett's worst crime is indecision and lack of good communication, then forgive him and get him back out there to start. What he's done is not beyond repair, nor should a false line in the sand from management prevent that. See the light on this one, not just to placate Brett or the fans, but as the smartest wins/losses decision you can make. I'd rather err on the side of bringing Brett back and having him lose it and still have Rodgers to take over, rather than making Rodgers the only option now that Brett wants to return.NO he hasn't earned enough capital becuase he has been this fore the last 5 years. As a GM, at some point you have to draw the line. AFter he retire, changed his mind and wanted to play, changed his mind again and said he was still retired, and now changes his mind a THIRD time and wants to play, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. No matter what your accomplishments are. Giving in to him now and reinstalling himas the starte sets a bad predicent. It tells the young guys that less than 100% commitment is not neccessary. That you can come and play whenever you feel like it, and we will leave your position warm for you even at the expense of another player ho has put in the 100% commitment form the beginning. You call it punishing, I call it ending the bullshit once and for all.

[The Leaper]

That is elitest BS. THat is plain and simple Brett Favre jock sniffing and ass kissing logic right there. Its is not similar to a Doctor or a policeman. Being a football player requires 52 others to do your job. In other words a TEAM effort. A policeman or a Doctor can to their job by themselvess without help.. Bad comparison.

Are you nuts? Policemen and doctors rely on others in every aspect of their profession. Claiming otherwise makes you look like a real moron.

Sure, the police officer is the one who gets the bulk of the credit...but the trained dispatcher sitting in some windowless room somewhere is just as important to maintaining law and order as the officer is. Without knowing where crimes are being committed, the police officer is useless.

The same goes for doctors...who rely on other specialists and nurses to do a myriad of tasks that allow the doctors to carry out what they do efficiently and effectively. What good would a doctor be if there wasn't an ambulance driver to get an injured person to the hospital?

[cpk1994]

That is elitest BS. THat is plain and simple Brett Favre jock sniffing and ass kissing logic right there. Its is not similar to a Doctor or a policeman. Being a football player requires 52 others to do your job. In other words a TEAM effort. A policeman or a Doctor can to their job by themselvess without help.. Bad comparison.

Are you nuts? Policemen and doctors rely on others in every aspect of their profession. Claiming otherwise makes you look like a real moron.

Sure, the police officer is the one who gets the bulk of the credit...but the trained dispatcher sitting in some windowless room somewhere is just as important to maintaining law and order as the officer is. Without knowing where crimes are being committed, the police officer is useless.

The same goes for doctors...who rely on other specialists and nurses to do a myriad of tasks that allow the doctors to carry out what they do efficiently and effectively. What good would a doctor be if there wasn't an ambulance driver to get an injured person to the hospital?A doctor doen't need anyone to give patients physicals. A policeman gives me a speeding ticket without relying on anyone else. They CAN do their job without help for the most part. The QB cannot do his job without help AT ALL. Your argument is still BS.

[texaspackerbacker]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Make that Thompson, McCarthy, and ME. I've been saying all along, the team can do more things and do them more consistently with Rodgers, even being a little bit green than with Favre as he is and was last season--and it's highly unlikely he will be near as good as last season--whoever he might play for.

And I disagree about the Giants game. Our OLine and Defense were what they were all season--good enough to beat almost anybody, but NOT good enough to compensate for a really bad game by Favre--at least not against a fairly good team playing way over their heads.

[The Leaper]

And I disagree about the Giants game. Our OLine and Defense were what they were all season--good enough to beat almost anybody, but NOT good enough to compensate for a really bad game by Favre--at least not against a fairly good team playing way over their heads.

Grant having 13 carries for 29 yards (2.23 avg) is your definition of a running game good enough to beat almost anybody?

A defense giving up 11 catches and 154 yards in poor passing conditions to Plaxico Burress and giving up 134 yards on the ground to the Giants running game is your definition of a defense good enough to beat almost anybody?

Yikes. You must not have been watching the same game I saw.

[Carolina_Packer]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.Carolina threw down a well thought out post with ways of working things out and all you can do is repeat you tired ass BS and tell him to stick his head in someones ass???I told him to get it OUT of Brett's ass not stick it in. And its only tired to those who believe "Lord Favre' can do no wrong and worship at his altar and sniff his jock.

I don't do dudes, dude. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I've never said Brett was blameless, and yeah, it is annoying to go into off-seasons and wonder if you're going to have him there or not. He's the one who pays the price and puts in all the time and sacrifices his body, and I'm sure that every year that you get closer to the end of your career it's that much harder to decide because your brain may say, don't do it, but your heart might be more into it. Unfortunately it's taken him longer this year to make up his mind. I'm sure there was no malice, like, "let's see how much I can piss off the Packers and make them wait." I presume that TT and MM still think he can play, so that hasn't changed. The only thing that really has is his commitment level. So, are we really going to have Brett out the door over something that didn't have to rise to the level of Brett possibly being unceremoniously dumped? Nobody is immune from blame here; it all could have been handled better, however, we are where we are, and if the front office wants to keep the impasse going, they have to live with whatever backlash and results they receive, and the legacy that they are the ones who were at the helm when he was traded/released (I hope it never comes to pass). Find a way, TT, forgive your prodigal hilbilly and bring him back as the starter and let's not let things end this way.

[texaspackerbacker]

And I disagree about the Giants game. Our OLine and Defense were what they were all season--good enough to beat almost anybody, but NOT good enough to compensate for a really bad game by Favre--at least not against a fairly good team playing way over their heads.

Grant having 13 carries for 29 yards (2.23 avg) is your definition of a running game good enough to beat almost anybody?

A defense giving up 11 catches and 154 yards in poor passing conditions to Plaxico Burress and giving up 134 yards on the ground to the Giants running game is your definition of a defense good enough to beat almost anybody?

Yikes. You must not have been watching the same game I saw.

You wouldn't agree that Grant's lack of production was because they loaded up to stop the run, and Favre couldn't take advantage?

Agreed, the defense wasn't up to standard that day, but that had happened a few other times and we won anyway with Grant, Favre, the receivers, and the O Line outgunning opponents.

[cpk1994]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.Carolina threw down a well thought out post with ways of working things out and all you can do is repeat you tired ass BS and tell him to stick his head in someones ass???I told him to get it OUT of Brett's ass not stick it in. And its only tired to those who believe "Lord Favre' can do no wrong and worship at his altar and sniff his jock.

I don't do dudes, dude. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I've never said Brett was blameless, and yeah, it is annoying to go into off-seasons and wonder if you're going to have him there or not. He's the one who pays the price and puts in all the time and sacrifices his body, and I'm sure that every year that you get closer to the end of your career it's that much harder to decide because your brain may say, don't do it, but your heart might be more into it. Unfortunately it's taken him longer this year to make up his mind. I'm sure there was no malice, like, "let's see how much I can piss off the Packers and make them wait." I presume that TT and MM still think he can play, so that hasn't changed. The only thing that really has is his commitment level. So, are we really going to have Brett out the door over something that didn't have to rise to the level of Brett possibly being unceremoniously dumped? Nobody is immune from blame here; it all could have been handled better, however, we are where we are, and if the front office wants to keep the impasse going, they have to live with whatever backlash and results they receive, and the legacy that they are the ones who were at the helm when he was traded/released (I hope it never comes to pass). Find a way, TT, forgive your prodigal hilbilly and bring him back as the starter and let's not let things end this way.Brett is the one who has to make the next move and sign his reinstatement papers. TT won't forgive him becuase he doens't want to put up with Favre's diva shit anymore. Bravo to TT for that.

[mraynrand]

PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.

Well, Green Bay is more than able to welcome him back under the condition that 2008 is the last hurrah, so there would be no need to have to go through this next year.

Also, the rest of the team already knows that Favre is above them. Are they on the cover of Madden? Are they going to have their number retired inside of Lambeau? The notion that this is some communist system in the NFL where everyone is viewed the same is bullshit. Favre is a legend...and with that comes a level of respect and privilege that others guys probably won't get.

It is the same in any other professional profession...it isn't like football is any different from being a doctor or a police man. There are always people at the bottom of the totem pole and people at the top.

Life ain't fair. Get used to it.

Good post. Favre will get treated differently. He knows it too. a certain amount of prima donna behaviour is to be expected. I think a threshold was crossed - the benefits of Favre no longer outweighed the negatives, IT SEEMS, in the eyes of TT and MM. I disagree, but I don't get to work with Rodgers every single day in the off season like they do. TT has been right about a lot of draft picks, and he's drafted 3 QBs now. MM has a solid history of making QBs better, including Favre. TT and MM are banking on their own abilities to coach up Rodgers and Brohm and whatshisface from LSU. I hope they're right - but if you look at their successes and the success of the team, they've good reason to believe they will be right.

[The Leaper]

You wouldn't agree that Grant's lack of production was because they loaded up to stop the run, and Favre couldn't take advantage?

No I wouldn't.

Go back and watch the damn game again Tex! The Giants were not loading up to stuff the run. They were primarily using their DL to stuff the run (they weren't going after Favre with their pass rush full bore all the time) and consistently dropped 6 guys into coverage. WRs could not get ANY separation...even the big TD by Driver was almost an INT because the Giant secondary was in our WRs jock straps. Our OL played miserably...which is why the coaching staff eventually gave up on the run altogether.


Agreed, the defense wasn't up to standard that day, but that had happened a few other times and we won anyway with Grant, Favre, the receivers, and the O Line outgunning opponents.

Doing it against Oakland or Detroit is pointless. You have to be able to do it against title contenders if you want to win a title.

Our defense did not play up to par that game...they did not adjust to help on Burress nearly fast enough and Harris was exposed. The defense could not get a key stop against the run game when it was needed, and put very little pressure on Manning...Eli sat back there all day.

That loss can hardly be pinned exclusively on Favre. He deserves his share of blame...but that share is quite a bit less than some on here would like to imagine. There is a ton of blame to go around. Hey...the team was VERY YOUNG and hadn't been there before. Chalk it up to a learning experience, and they probably will be better the next time...if there is a next time.

[woodbuck27]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie (edit) starting QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man deep down but no way for that now. Not any other NFL team but he has been handcuffed. He should simply stay retired as a final outcome of this lousy mess.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler. Just not for Green Bay ever again. So any posts of the Favre Vs Rodgers nature are mute to the reality of life now in Green Bay. A tough one for too many Packer fans but reality. :)

[The Leaper]

I think a threshold was crossed - the benefits of Favre no longer outweighed the negatives, IT SEEMS, in the eyes of TT and MM.

Yep, I'm guessing you are right. I'm guessing Favre's little stunt where he wanted to come back the first time and backed out was too much for them. I can sort of understand that...Favre handled this like a dumbass for the most part.

Still, when the team is THIS CLOSE to having all the pieces in place, to go to an inexperienced QB is such a huge risk...no matter how great he has looked in practice or preseason.

[mission]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man. Not any other NFL team b ut he has been handcuffed.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler.

Are you fucking retarded? He looks very ready and strong? Looks rested? His arm LOOKS good?

What are you? Have you ever played a sport before? Do you wear pink ballerina outfits while you post on PR?

Rodgers is NOT a rookie. A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Not where Rodgers is... I have no idea how you can extrapolate Favre's ability to play an ENTIRE season based on that interview. Shit, what's his record in the cold playoffs?

Of course he's fucking rested.

HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.

jesus, i thought you were *ok* despite scott always bashing on you but man... you're just like 7 fries short of a happy meal.




now this is where you tell me that im sick and you feel sorry for me and that i need jesus and all of that since you don't have anything to really say to me.

[cpk1994]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man. Not any other NFL team b ut he has been handcuffed.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler.

Are you fucking retarded? He looks very ready and strong? Looks rested? His arm LOOKS good?

What are you? Have you ever played a sport before? Do you wear pink ballerina outfits while you post on PR?

Rodgers is NOT a rookie. A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Not where Rodgers is... I have no idea how you can extrapolate Favre's ability to play an ENTIRE season based on that interview. Shit, what's his record in the cold playoffs?

Of course he's fucking rested.

HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.

jesus, i thought you were *ok* despite scott always bashing on you but man... you're just like 7 fries short of a happy meal.




now this is where you tell me that im sick and you feel sorry for me and that i need jesus and all of that since you don't have anything to really say to me.Woody's ramblings are inspiring. They inspire people to "Just Say NO to Drugs".

[The Leaper]

A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Ah...something to make me laugh. :D

[sheepshead]

That canker sore that appears every 3 months or so?? Damn

[Partial]

I think you might be onto something, Patler. However, until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy for 16 games, it's a tough opinion to agree with. With Favre, you knew that he'd be there every game--giving you a chance to win. Favre's mannerisms in many of his recent cold weather games had me worried. He used to own cold weather. Recently, it looked like he'd rather be somewhere else.

I didn't see anyone else look like they really wanted to be there either. Those were some super cold games. I'm not convinced Favre is a liability in cold weather.

Agreed.

Those were what the coldest and third coldest games ever? The wind was wicked. Does anyone remember Coughlin's face and how it pretty much peeled off onto the tundra of lambeau?!?

They lost to a team of destiny.

[woodbuck27]

Could go ethier way. Brett's shit sure isn't helping the situation though.

Yup. Take ' the nails ' and hammer away from Brett NOW! That hole is dark and deep. :D

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man. Not any other NFL team b ut he has been handcuffed.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler.

Are you fucking retarded? He looks very ready and strong? Looks rested? His arm LOOKS good?

What are you? Have you ever played a sport before? Do you wear pink ballerina outfits while you post on PR?

Rodgers is NOT a rookie. A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Not where Rodgers is... I have no idea how you can extrapolate Favre's ability to play an ENTIRE season based on that interview. Shit, what's his record in the cold playoffs?

Of course he's fucking rested.

HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.

jesus, i thought you were *ok* despite scott always bashing on you but man... you're just like 7 fries short of a happy meal.




now this is where you tell me that im sick and you feel sorry for me and that i need jesus and all of that since you don't have anything to really say to me.Woody's ramblings are inspiring. They inspire people to "Just Say NO to Drugs".

It is actually the opposite. His posts inspire our other senior members to stay on their meds. :lol:

[woodbuck27]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man. Not any other NFL team but he has been handcuffed.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler.

Are you fucking retarded? He looks very ready and strong? Looks rested? His arm LOOKS good?

What are you? Have you ever played a sport before? Do you wear pink ballerina outfits while you post on PR?

Rodgers is NOT a rookie. A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Not where Rodgers is... I have no idea how you can extrapolate Favre's ability to play an ENTIRE season based on that interview. Shit, what's his record in the cold playoffs?

Of course he's fucking rested.

HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.

jesus, i thought you were *ok* despite scott always bashing on you but man... you're just like 7 fries short of a happy meal.




now this is where you tell me that im sick and you feel sorry for me and that i need jesus and all of that since you don't have anything to really say to me.

I revised that post to Rookie starter mission.

As far as the rest of your response. Take it 'to hell' with YOU. What's with all the crap coming at me when I've never attacked you?

Attack the post NOT the poster. :idea:

[Zool]

yup

[gex]

mission=favre hater, TT salad tosser, your too young too even know what Favre has done for this orginization, or to probably think of anybody else but yourself, maybe TT's smooth nutsack :x

[Zool]

mission=favre hater, TT salad tosser, your too young too even know what Favre has done for this orginization, or to probably think of anybody else but yourself, maybe TT's smooth nutsack :x

Well thats outa left field. How do you know his sack is smooth?

[pbmax]

I agree this may be their thought process this year. Especially McCarthy. However, we know that the odds are that it will be several different QBs before we find a viable replacement for Favre. So I am hopeful that Thompson is thinking longer term, that it might eventually be Rodgers, Brohm, Flynn or an undrafted QB from the CFL.

We keep waiting for Thompson to go all in and bet the farm like the Brewers did with CC Sabathia. But I am not sure he will ever do that. Sorry, Bretsky.

I think he may continue churning through quantity, looking for quality at QB. They have new matching five year contracts, so M3 and T2 have time, at least, as much as anyone besides Shanahan or Cowher will ever get.

The Favre calculus is that he is not getting better, but worse, whether its a reaction to cold weather or the drain in the second half of the season. I am also not convinced that Thompson views this as a Super Bowl contender, given he still has holes at DT, pass rusher and in the secondary. They might have the QB, safety or CB of the future on the roster, but a couple of the weak spots are likely to last until the next off season.


The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

[MJZiggy]

I leave you people alone for 10 stinkin' hours and THIS is what I come home to???? Meds and smooth nutsacks? And even worse, mixed metaphors???

[pbmax]

Maybe instead of an Ignore Poster button, we need an ignore word option. Kind of like Dr. Z's last name used to get altered. Hey, when did Mad allow Zimmerman again?


I leave you people alone for 10 stinkin' hours and THIS is what I come home to???? Meds and smooth nutsacks? And even worse, mixed metaphors???

[mission]

mission=favre hater, TT salad tosser, your too young too even know what Favre has done for this orginization, or to probably think of anybody else but yourself, maybe TT's smooth nutsack :x

im old enough to properly form somewhat coherent and legible sentences while retaining enough youth to just-as-properly beat the shit out of you if i knew you were anything more than a yeah-what-he-said contributor...



zool - thank you, sir.



:P

oh --- and be careful, these doooods IZ mah frenz ... zone 3 kru.. mad tough in da chatrewms shawtay...
http://a998.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/40/l_f97d4773d3d47d64d612ed8b54eff635.jpg

[the_idle_threat]

I leave you people alone for 10 stinkin' hours and THIS is what I come home to???? Meds and smooth nutsacks? And even worse, mixed metaphors???

You say that like you've never come home to meds and smooth nutsacks before ... :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

I leave you people alone for 10 stinkin' hours and THIS is what I come home to???? Meds and smooth nutsacks? And even worse, mixed metaphors???

You say that like you've never come home to meds and smooth nutsacks before ... :lol:

you certainly are the romantic type, Idle.

[the_idle_threat]

I leave you people alone for 10 stinkin' hours and THIS is what I come home to???? Meds and smooth nutsacks? And even worse, mixed metaphors???

You say that like you've never come home to meds and smooth nutsacks before ... :lol:

you certainly are the romantic type, Idle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/82/Chef.svg/180px-Chef.svg.png

[bobblehead]

And the fact that the play calling seemed to forget who Ryan Grant was....and that we had a running game.

Exactly.

Laying the bulk of the blame on Favre for the loss to the Giants is lunacy. Sure, he deserves plenty of blame for that final throw...it was a turd. But numerous other turds were laid that day well before Favre's final throw...and all contributed to the loss. There were poor coaching decisions, dropped passes, poor blocking...you name it.

Let's be honest...the Packers as a team were not as experienced or mentally tough as the Giants, and it showed.

That is why I can't understand the notion that getting rid of Favre is in the best interest of the team. The team gained a ton of experience in that run last year...and is ready to reload in 2008. So you decide to throw that all away and put an untested QB in to lead them...so we are back to square one?

It makes no sense to me. None.

In march getting rid of favre wasn't in the best interest of the team for THIS season...agreed. At this point the long term effects of bringing favre back would be pretty harsh. I'm not even sure at this point the working relationship would be solid enough to give us the best chance to win. It might be, if everyone can put aside their feelings, but it doesn't sound like they can at this point.

[woodbuck27]

Protect the legacy that both the Packers and Brett have built together and bring Brett back based on his reputation, his past performance, including last year's accomplishment, and let him play. A-Rod can wait to build his own legacy. If Brett is reinstated, sit him down, tell him you want him back and you want to win and that you are sorry this situation has deteriorated, but if you are willing to come back and be our guy, let's just put this all in the past and go out and win football games this year.

I'm hoping that's not just a dream. Brett is a talker, says lots of stuff; can't take it all to heart. The Packers should love him despite the annoyance/situation he has helped to cause. He's not just the best QB you have, he's your legacy QB that means a lot to fans everywhere. Even if you do it for capitalist/legacy/brand reasons, it's still smarter than drawing a false line in the sand and making the guy feel unwanted. Sure he's indecisive, but so are many when they are trying to decide to play still. I don't think he's trying to run the team, just make up his freakin' mind. Still can win, this still can happen, I hope the management see's the big, big picture and is too focused in on 2008 or the next few years. It doesn't need to go down this way! It can be mended.PLease. Sit him down and tell them you are sorry while making him the starter? You basically just condoned Brett's divish behavior and convey to the rest of the team that Brett is is above them. You do that and he will pull hte same shit next year. Get you're head out of Favre's ass and back to reality.

As well as Brett has been known to rip them, I don't have my head anywhere near there.

It's easy to say, show your toughness TT, be the man, make him sit, blah, blah, blah...guess what? People want to have a great GM, but people don't often wax poetic about what a GM means to a team, unless you are really into GM's vs. players. They are sentimental about players, they wear their jerseys, the follow their careers as the relationship/legacy builds between fans and player. This ain't some washed up guy who can't let it go. If he were Kenny Stabler embarrassing himself with the Saints, I'd be the first one to say I hope he goes, but I don't.

Wanting him back is for a lot of reasons. You look at punishing him for being indecisive and "diva-ish". I think his indecision was inconvenient and likely annoying, and makes it hard to plan, but so what? Hasn't Brett built up enough capital over the years to screw up something and be forgiven? Either you play him because you think he gives you the best chance to win or you trade/release him because you don't. The organization will do what it's inclined to do, but I hope it's neither trade or release. Geez, just be the bigger person, hold out an olive branch and say, this is crazy. Let's just step back from the brink and think about what we are doing. Just because they drew a line in the sand doesn't mean that they can't change their collective minds. I'm sure they are mulling over how this is going to play out for everyone's legacy. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong if to many, many people you are known/perceived as the ones who didn't let Brett come back and play, and couldn't patch things up with him.

If Favre was a washed up guy and the fans knew it, but Brett didn't, well that would be something else. This is a situation that we are in by virtue of having a franchise, all-time HOF'er and I guess that means that we have to live with some of this at the end of his career. Is it fair? Maybe not, but I'll take Brett as a double standard over Rodgers. He's earned more in my bank than Rodgers (and I like Rodgers and think he could be something). Part of it is the history, sure. Part of it is wanting him to play again, but from a purely football standpoint of wins/losses/success, I say bury the hatchet, take a new tact...you don't have to kiss his ass, and you can acknowledge what you haven't liked in all this, but you gotta come up with, we signed you, you can still play, the fans (most) love you as an all-time great and we will not let it go down this way. If Brett's worst crime is indecision and lack of good communication, then forgive him and get him back out there to start. What he's done is not beyond repair, nor should a false line in the sand from management prevent that. See the light on this one, not just to placate Brett or the fans, but as the smartest wins/losses
decision you can make. I'd rather err on the side of bringing Brett back and having him lose it and still have Rodgers to take over, rather than making Rodgers the only option now that Brett wants to return.

Very solid and logical thinking and post. Congratulations Carolina_Packer.

[woodbuck27]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man. Not any other NFL team b ut he has been handcuffed.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler.

Are you fucking retarded? He looks very ready and strong? Looks rested? His arm LOOKS good?

What are you? Have you ever played a sport before? Do you wear pink ballerina outfits while you post on PR?

Rodgers is NOT a rookie. A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Not where Rodgers is... I have no idea how you can extrapolate Favre's ability to play an ENTIRE season based on that interview. Shit, what's his record in the cold playoffs?

Of course he's fucking rested.

HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.

jesus, i thought you were *ok* despite scott always bashing on you but man... you're just like 7 fries short of a happy meal.




now this is where you tell me that im sick and you feel sorry for me and that i need jesus and all of that since you don't have anything to really say to me.


Well that is certainly 'a positive NOT post' mission. Why all the anger man? No I don't feel sorry or anything for you but concern as to 'the anger'.

Find Jesus? YOU!??

Before that... you need to adjust your attitude and need for useless and baseless attacks on any man that has a right of observation and reporting such to this forum. As something positive or a mere opinion and not meant to incite anyone's rages.

Try to get a better grip and attitude. It's nicer for you mission.

Before long you'll give yourself ''puffed lips syndrome'' like cpk1994 suffered too much, just trying to grow up. Do you really enjoy or get off acting ignorant like cpk1994? Slamming and trying to insult anyone with a view opposed to his, gains no respect. There's a better way man.

[mission]

im only replying to register my laughter at the fact you replied to me twice...

otherwise, all i have to say is

TL;DR




:flag:

[gex]

mission you need to grow up man, the only thing mature about you are your beats ...... and by mature I mean old... like yesterday's shit. :lol:

[Partial]

burn.

[Zool]

heyoooo

pay the man.

[hoosier]

oh --- and be careful, these doooods IZ mah frenz ... zone 3 kru.. mad tough in da chatrewms shawtay...
http://a998.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/40/l_f97d4773d3d47d64d612ed8b54eff635.jpg

Why are they signing "I love you"? Is it because (Dennis Hopper, Blue Velvet) they're going to send someone a "love letter"? :shock:

[Merlin]

The title lends this thread to be somewhat of a good natured discussion about which is right Favre over Rodgers or Rodgers over Favre. Instead it has turned into a bashing session for anyone who disagrees with the later. Sadly, everyone has their own opinion and if you disagree with the majority you are automatically chastised. Nothing new here. If you support Favre, don't bother with this bunch, you are in a no-win situation.

[sheepshead]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!

[RashanGary]

Favre doesn't have a very long history of playing bad in cold weather games but he has a 10 year history of playing bad in big games. He's getting older and like people said he will only get worse, not better. He doesn't care to be a part of the team in the offseason. He thinks he can make personnel decisions. Generally, he's a pretty big headache, but a very good player still.

Rodgers appears to be impressing everyone in the Packers organization. He's younger, getting better. He's hard working, a good teammate. He's humble and knows his role as a leader but doesn't stretch it into a pain in the ass.


It's not one thing here. It's everything. I think the Packers are just ready to move forward. Brett's right about one thing. He's guilty of retiring early and that's it. It's true. He retired early and left a door open. Rodgers walked in and slammed it in Brett's face. Through hard work and success with opportunities Rodgers has allowed the Packers to move past Favre. I look forward to this season because I think a lot of people are going to be suprised that Brett is very replacable.

[The Leaper]

I look forward to this season because I think a lot of people are going to be suprised that Brett is very replacable.

Fine Harrell.

I've got $50 here that says the Packers won't reach 12 wins next year. If you think Rodgers is going to be so surprising in terms of replacing Favre, put your money where your mouth is.

[sharpe1027]

Maybe the Packers treated Favre the way the did because they thought he was more interested in playing for the Viqueens. Maybe they felt that Favre was intentionally waiting to put them in a hard spot so that they would release him.

I keep asking myself, why did he immediately ask for an outright release after one short phone conference? I'm also wondering why all the mudslinging started from his family and agent before that phone conversation. His recent interview was all about himself and not about the Packers as a team. I've given Brett a lot of leaway in the past for his actions on and off the field, I've been called and Favre apologists for it, but I look at the facts and find it hard to believe he truly wants to play for the Pack.

[Carolina_Packer]

I keep asking myself, why did he immediately ask for an outright release after one short phone conference? I'm also wondering why all the mudslinging started from his family and agent before that phone conversation.

I think it had to do with the conversation that Brett had with McCarthy where MM said that the team had moved on. I can't remember exactly the date this happened, but I think it was mid-late June. I think that probably set Favre off as if there wasn't going to be an option for him in GB. Favre has said through the media that he asked for his release so as not to be a distraction to the team since they told him they had moved on. Once it got to the point of the team will not release him and they don't want him playing for someone else and his role has changed, I think that set Brett off even more, which is why they are where they are with this whole thing.

I could see where a player, especially one that has been the franchise guy and given so much, would get upset at not having good options, especially when the team had decided to move on without him and consequently won't release him after saying he is not wanted as the starter. Initially I was only thinking of it in terms of Brett "expecting" his starters job back when he talked to MM and told him he wanted to come back. While I think Favre hope the team would still be receptive to his return, I think he was surprised by the fact that after saying they didn't want him as the starter they wouldn't grant him his release. So Favre probably got mad because the team would be holding him in limbo, when he has expressed a desire to play. I could see a player being upset by that. He's 38 and has a small window of opportunity. The only thing the organization would have to change at this point is their minds regarding the moving on and Favre's role. I hope they are not artificially sticking to Rodgers as the starter because by golly we've made up our minds. Teams don't change their positions frequently? Come on. If Strayhan can sit out training camp, have there be acrimony, trade talks, huffing and puffing and he can come back from that and play, then Brett can too. Granted Favre formally retired to the press, but so what? This can still be mended. It just depends on how much the management sticks to their guns vs. looking at the big, big picture of how this all looks, even if they feel they are right to do this. There will be many who don't see it that way, and will blame the organization for not being more flexible in their thinking, especially when it comes to Favre and what he means to the organization/fans. People complain about the Favre lovers here, and some people say, "what have you done for me lately?" Well, last year wasn't a bad showing, people. Far from it. If I was Thompson, I'd take my chances on mending fences with Brett, telling him to file for reinstatement and bringing him back as the starter. I know that would probably hurt Rodgers feelings, but I'd be less concerned about that, considering the tangibles/intangibles that Brett has contributed over the years, and likely would be able to contribute again. Besides, if Favre shows he as lost it, we still have A-Rod to step in and Brett finally realizes his playing days are over. If Brett has another brilliant season, the Packers benefit, the acrimony with the team is healed and the legacies of both player and organization are in tact. That means a lot to me. Now the organization just has to come back from the edge and see it that way. Don't let it end this way, and don't keep the problem going by hitting Favre on the nose with a rolled up newspaper by having him back as a backup. If he was good enough to start last year, likely he's still good enough this year. The whole world is watching and you have to make the right decision, whether you are more right than Brett on this or not. Mend it, don't end it.

[Fritz]

In response to Patler's original question, I first want to say that Patler's a brave guy. I posted on another thread the same question and thought I was taking chances...but to start an entire thread with this heresy - wow.

But it must be considered. As I said in the other thread, so many people are proposing solutions based on an assumption that Favre is automatically a better option than Rodgers. He may well be - history would point that way.

However, Favre is 38 and has not worked out - other than at a local high school, throwing passes - this offseason. To do what he did last year seems to require - and I think Favre more of less agrees with this - a 100% commitment which means serious offseason workouts. That's why - in part - he said he retired. Didn't want to have to put in the required offseason training any more.

So, at this point, it is possible that the team believes Rodgers is a better option, in part because (barring injury) he's also got more future. At some point, people, Favre is really going to be gone. Really. So maybe the team thinks that one more year and then more retirement hemming and hawing is not in the team's best long term interest. Add to that that it is possible Rodgers is good enough to get the Pack where they want to go (not better than Favre - just good enough) this year, and maybe the assumption that Favre is automatically better for the Packers this year can be questioned.

[sharpe1027]

Favre has said through the media that he asked for his release so as not to be a distraction to the team since they told him they had moved on.

I have to say that that was a well thoughtout post and you raised a bunch of good points and I would rather have him starting than Rodgers. My problem, however, is that much of it relies upon the above statement. Publicly doing anything, much less asking for release, is the last thing that should have been done if team distraction was a concern. Everything points to Favre and Co. trying to garner public support, the effects on and distractions to the team be damned.

Why the need to take shots at the Packers and the GM? Why the public request for release? Why almost zero effort to work something out? I understand that he probably didn't like hearing that "they had moved on," but only one serious telephone conversation and then you're ready to give up on the team you say you want to play for, you're ready to take shots at the team? To me, Favre's interview comes off as trying to sell something, and I'm not buying.

[The Leaper]

Here is my summary at this point.

A. I think Favre CERTAINLY provides the best chance at a title in 2008. Rodgers will eventually be a solid starter I think, but 2008 is not going to be some kind of fairy tale for him IMO. It will be tough. There will be plenty of learning experiences. There will be times that people will scream for Favre because of his ups and downs.

I'm expecting 9 wins, plus or minus a win...enough to keep us in the playoff hunt, but probably coming up a little short.

B. However, the point that Favre will leave at some point and a transition will need to be made is valid and clearly not lost on Thompson or the Packers. I can see the team's viewpoint.

In that respect, now is CERTAINLY the best time to make a transition. Rodgers is as ready as he will ever be, and he's motivated. The team is coming off a great season, and the experience of a playoff run could help the team overachieve in 2008, despite Rodgers' growing pains.

C. It is in the best interest of the team to put this to bed as quickly as possible...when possible. If Favre calls Thompson's bluff, so to speak, then Green Bay needs to trade Favre and move on very quickly. Extending this saga is not in the team's best interest.

I'd also put an end to the notion that the Packers would take him back under any circumstances. Just come out and say what we know they already mean...they've moved on, and will welcome moving Favre for an acceptable price to a team that isn't in the NFC North if he so desires. Point out that a flat out release is an unreasonable demand...considering the Packers own his contract rights and like any business have the right to receive fair compensation for those rights.

[Fritz]

Nice analysis.

[sheepshead]

In response to Patler's original question, I first want to say that Patler's a brave guy. I posted on another thread the same question and thought I was taking chances...but to start an entire thread with this heresy - wow.

But it must be considered. As I said in the other thread, so many people are proposing solutions based on an assumption that Favre is automatically a better option than Rodgers. He may well be - history would point that way.

However, Favre is 38 and has not worked out - other than at a local high school, throwing passes - this offseason. To do what he did last year seems to require - and I think Favre more of less agrees with this - a 100% commitment which means serious offseason workouts. That's why - in part - he said he retired. Didn't want to have to put in the required offseason training any more.

So, at this point, it is possible that the team believes Rodgers is a better option, in part because (barring injury) he's also got more future. At some point, people, Favre is really going to be gone. Really. So maybe the team thinks that one more year and then more retirement hemming and hawing is not in the team's best long term interest. Add to that that it is possible Rodgers is good enough to get the Pack where they want to go (not better than Favre - just good enough) this year, and maybe the assumption that Favre is automatically better for the Packers this year can be questioned.

again i say--NO SHIT! There is no question thats what they think-what other conclusion can you come to? This baffles me.

[mraynrand]

If you support Favre, don't bother with this bunch, you are in a no-win situation.

Instead of thinking of it as winning or losing, why not just give your view, let people know what you're thinking, and argue points you enjoy arguing?

I went nuts last weekend thinking that Thompson was satisfied that Rodgers gives the Packers the best chance to win this season over Favre. I assumed that given Favre's play last year and Rodgers' inexperience, that this was a bad position. I still think so, but I can guess the reasons why Thompson might think differently. And I think all those reasons have been stated. Now we have to wait until September, and really, most important, December and hopefully January, to see if he's right.

[sharpe1027]

again i say--NO SHIT! There is no question thats what they think-what other conclusion can you come to? This baffles me.

What other conclusions?

Maybe they were thought that Favre didn't want to play for the Packers anymore.

Maybe they weren't sure he was committed and that he might back out again.

Maybe they were trying to work a trade for someon else that we don't know about and his salary number would be problematic.

Maybe they were just pissed at him for all the crap he pulled.

Maybe there were playing hardball to leverage a contract restructuring.

Maybe they were trying to show support for Rodgers, while they were fine with him coming back.

Maybe they were just unsure of which was the better option at QB and wanted to make sure that Favre understood that there weren't any guarantees.

Relax. When people come to different conclusions than you did, they might not be idiots. They may have just thought of something you didn't. This is far from a black and white issue.

[mraynrand]

Here is my summary at this point.

A. I think Favre CERTAINLY provides the best chance at a title in 2008. Rodgers will eventually be a solid starter I think, but 2008 is not going to be some kind of fairy tale for him IMO. It will be tough. There will be plenty of learning experiences. There will be times that people will scream for Favre because of his ups and downs.


I think the same thing, EXCEPT the following stipulation. Look at 2007: The Packers started with a weak offense with no running game. They needed Favre to provide the stability for the offense to mature. This year they may start with a solid offense, but need the QB to come along. You could argue that the defense will be even stronger this year, all the young guys who gained experience over the past 1-2 years start coming into their own. So Rodgers may have time to play his way into a playoff caliber starting quarterback, for a team that now can rely on a running game, good weapons in the receiving corps., and a solid defense. In this scenario, Rodgers should be coming into his own late in the season - the same time Favre has faded over the past several seasons. It might just work.

[RIPackerFan]

I think the Leaper made some great points - but I think there is one point that was missing.

Both TT and MM signed extensions last year. While signing an extension to not mean someone would not be let go - it does provide both MM and TT some extra rope. As thus, if there was a time to take additional risk (i.e. start Rogers), now is the time to do it.

I don't think that either MM or TT think Rogers is better than Favre for next year. However, they know they have to make a transition at some point and take on the risk of the unknown. They are much more comfortable taking that risk after they received their extension (and after last year's excellent season). Also, if they do start Favre this year - they will basically have to wait another year to see what Rogers can do - and that will be his contract year. We all know that if Rogers does well in a contract year - we will be spending big bucks to retain him - as opposed to extending him if he does well this year.

I think this is one of the reasons why they were not actively pursuing Favre to come back. I think they were indifferent - due to the fact that in the long run for them - it is better to see what they have in Rogers now (even at the expense of immediate wins/losses) than to wait another year.

[mraynrand]

Good point about the contract extension. Adding to that, what about the ego factor? Look, Holmgren left for Seattle (family issues aside) because he wanted the challenge of building a Superbowl winner - and getting credit for it. I also think that if you have a pretty good ego, and you're coaching Favre, you'd like to show that you can win it all without Favre. Favre casts a huge shadow. TT and MM both seem to have pretty strong egos. MM has a great history of improving QB play (and his role in improving Favre should not be dismissed at all). So from their perspective, they'd love to show that they can win without Favre. And what better time to do it - after you get contract extensions. You know Favre isn't going to be a significant factor in your second contract, so may as well start now.

[RIPackerFan]

Good point mraynrand.

I have thought to myself privately that every new business CEO likes to put their stamp on the company - which usually means significant changes. I am sure that TT wants to put his stamp on Green Bay - and while Favre is still there, the "old school" is ever present - and he won't ever get the credit.

[Carolina_Packer]

I'd also put an end to the notion that the Packers would take him back under any circumstances. Just come out and say what we know they already mean...they've moved on, and will welcome moving Favre for an acceptable price to a team that isn't in the NFC North if he so desires. Point out that a flat out release is an unreasonable demand...considering the Packers own his contract rights and like any business have the right to receive fair compensation for those rights.

Perhaps the only thing wrong with that from the organizations standpoint is that you don't want to weaken your negotiating chances. If the front office shows any kind of attitude of being an anxious seller, they might not get fair value for him. I certainly hope they don't do what Billy King did to Allen Iverson in Philly, because it puts you behind the 8 ball for negotiation, IMO. If the Packers keep up the front that they might hold onto him and actually play him, then teams might be willing to be the anxious buyer, which would work out better for a trade.

I don't want a trade to happen. In my pipe dream, the team realizes that they are better off at QB right now from a wins/losses standpoint with Favre and will extend an olive branch to him, whether he deserves it or not to settle the situation and alleviate the legacy killing for both sides. Right, I know it's a pipe dream, but it's mine, and I'll hold onto it until something is decided.

[Carolina_Packer]

again i say--NO SHIT! There is no question thats what they think-what other conclusion can you come to? This baffles me.

What other conclusions?

Maybe they were thought that Favre didn't want to play for the Packers anymore.

Maybe they weren't sure he was committed and that he might back out again.

Maybe they were trying to work a trade for someon else that we don't know about and his salary number would be problematic.

Maybe they were just pissed at him for all the crap he pulled.

Maybe there were playing hardball to leverage a contract restructuring.

Maybe they were trying to show support for Rodgers, while they were fine with him coming back.

Maybe they were just unsure of which was the better option at QB and wanted to make sure that Favre understood that there weren't any guarantees.

Relax. When people come to different conclusions than you did, they might not be idiots. They may have just thought of something you didn't. This is far from a black and white issue.

The thing I wonder about is when did their change of heart concerning Favre finally take place? You COULD NOT argue that they were glad to see him retire and that it happened then and they slammed the door shut because there were talks about a month after he retired at his press conference. So, when did the "moving on" actually take place where Brett couldn't just call them in June and say he wanted back in? Was it right after the April draft? Sometime in May or June after the OTA's and Mini-camps? I don't know.

Again, I don't know if Favre is mad about the door being closed to him to not just announce his comeback and have the Packers accept him back as the starting QB, or if he's upset about being put in a position where he can't go where he wants to go (release) or that they considering a different role (clipboard).

[The Leaper]

Again, I don't know if Favre is mad about the door being closed to him to not just announce his comeback and have the Packers accept him back as the starting QB, or if he's upset about being put in a position where he can't go where he wants to go (release) or that they considering a different role (clipboard).

I'm not sure if Favre knows what he is mad at either. That's the sad part.

[mraynrand]

Again, I don't know if Favre is mad about the door being closed to him to not just announce his comeback and have the Packers accept him back as the starting QB, or if he's upset about being put in a position where he can't go where he wants to go (release) or that they considering a different role (clipboard).

I'm not sure if Favre knows what he is mad at either. That's the sad part.

After watching those pathetic interviews with Greta, it really seems as though he's a guy who really isn't sure what he wants, and is dismayed to find that the team is moved on. He seems like the high school grad who doesn't have a job and isn't going to college, who heads back to the old ball field only to find that the Junior who was his backup is now the starter, and the rest of the guys are giving him looks like "what are you doing here?"

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not surprised that there are few trade rumors. Other teams have to be wondering if he really wants to play too.

[Pugger]

Brett may have been pissed when he was told the team has moved on but they weren't gonna just release him outright. No GM in his right mind would let a player with that much value go for free and get no compensation. Is Brett opposed to a trade? Brett probably fears he'll be traded to a bottomfeeder. :shock:

But I don't think the reason MM and TT are going with Rodgers this year is because Brett can't play in the cold. I think it's because Brett will not committ 100% to football this season! Even when Greta asked him last week if he was ready to come back he paused. If he truly wanted to play and force TT's hand he would've filed those reinstatement papers yesterday. I think he went on national TV just to stick it to TT. :?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Brett probably fears he'll be traded to a bottomfeeder. :shock:

If you think it through, it is not in the Packers interests to trade FAvre to a team where he won't be happy. That might just lead to him being released or traded again. If a trade does happen, it will be a three-way decision.

I think it increasingly looks like Favre's best option to play is to accept the Packers terms and give GB a shot. Not sure if he has it in him to make that attitude adjustment.

I think when Favre decided he wanted to play again, it was with the idea of returning to a solid GB team that was thrilled to receive the returning hero. If I'm betting, I'd say Favre is now most likely to stay retired - too many hassles with the other options.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think when Favre decided he wanted to play again, it was with the idea of returning to a solid GB team that was thrilled to receive the returning hero. If I'm betting, I'd say Favre is now most likely to stay retired - too many hassles with the other options.

I wouldn't mind that outcome either. I am not in the middle like the Packers management, either he retires or if you bring him back, you play him. The whole different role thing is limbo, and no player, especially a celebrated, great player like Favre would come back to hold a clipboard. It's that same ego that has led him to his great career, but we are seeing the downside of that ego too.

[sheepshead]

again i say--NO SHIT! There is no question thats what they think-what other conclusion can you come to? This baffles me.

What other conclusions?

Maybe they were thought that Favre didn't want to play for the Packers anymore.

Maybe they weren't sure he was committed and that he might back out again.

Maybe they were trying to work a trade for someon else that we don't know about and his salary number would be problematic.

Maybe they were just pissed at him for all the crap he pulled.

Maybe there were playing hardball to leverage a contract restructuring.

Maybe they were trying to show support for Rodgers, while they were fine with him coming back.

Maybe they were just unsure of which was the better option at QB and wanted to make sure that Favre understood that there weren't any guarantees.

Relax. When people come to different conclusions than you did, they might not be idiots. They may have just thought of something you didn't. This is far from a black and white issue.

touchy feely? posturing?? I dont think so. WTF? You think these guys belong on Dr Phil. None of this is applicable.

[sharpe1027]

touchy feely? posturing?? I dont think so. WTF? You think these guys belong on Dr Phil. None of this is applicable.

My mistake, I didn't realize that "you don't think so." That clears it up and gives you every right to be dismissive of others. Who are they to think something different from you? Bastards! Preach to us from your mountain oh great one! :evil:

Moving on.

[Fritz]

Brett may have been pissed when he was told the team has moved on but they weren't gonna just release him outright. No GM in his right mind would let a player with that much value go for free and get no compensation. Is Brett opposed to a trade? Brett probably fears he'll be traded to a bottomfeeder. :shock:

But I don't think the reason MM and TT are going with Rodgers this year is because Brett can't play in the cold. I think it's because Brett will not committ 100% to football this season! Even when Greta asked him last week if he was ready to come back he paused. If he truly wanted to play and force TT's hand he would've filed those reinstatement papers yesterday. I think he went on national TV just to stick it to TT. :?

I think this might answer the question posed on the last page as to when the Packers got tired of it all. Of course I do not know, but based on what I've read - the interviews w/ TT and Favre and the newspaper articles - it appears the Packers were ready and willing to fly down to Kiln and finalize the comeback - when was that? Late March? Whenever that was. And then, when Favre backed out of that, I imagine the warning flags (and a little bit of anger) might have gone up. And as the interview with Favre himself suggests, he's STILL not sure he's committed to coming back.

[sheepshead]

touchy feely? posturing?? I dont think so. WTF? You think these guys belong on Dr Phil. None of this is applicable.

My mistake, I didn't realize that "you don't think so." That clears it up and gives you every right to be dismissive of others. Who are they to think something different from you? Bastards! Preach to us from your mountain oh great one! :evil:

Moving on.


Jees - Ok..TT gets paid to put the best team on the field that he can. MM gets paid to win games and work closely with said GM. Of course they "are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre?"

If that wasnt the case, would any of this be going on?

Do you REALLY think this is all based on ego and hurt feelings instead of people doing their jobs? While we can debate whether or not TT should suck it up at this point, there is no question he feels he is doing whats best for the Packers.

[Patler]

(quoting Patler): "The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?"


This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!

If it is so obvious, why have so many fans and sportswriters made statements to the effect that it goes without saying the Packers would be a better team in 2008 with Favre as the QB?

Did TT let Sharper go because he thought they would be just as good with a rookie starting?

Did TT not re-sign Rivera go because he thought any old guard would be just as good?

Did TT release Wahle because he thought they could win just as easily without him?

I would suggest the answers to the last three questions are : No. No. and No. All were done because situations required that they be done, even though all would likely have a negative impact in the season they happened. The GM has to have a mixed outlook of the long-term good of the team, and the best success in the upcoming season. If he looked only at the upcoming season, few rookies would make the team.

I also think many people think the same is true with the Favre situation, that for 2008 the team is worse off without him, but the situation got to a point that required it. I'm not convinced of that, and I think TT and MM believe their ultimate chance of playoff success in 2008 is no worse with Rodgers as their QB. This may not be a decision based solely on the long-term good of the team, it may also reflect their feelings about success in 2008.

[vince]

Maybe the Packers treated Favre the way the did because they thought he was more interested in playing for the Viqueens. Maybe they felt that Favre was intentionally waiting to put them in a hard spot so that they would release him.

I keep asking myself, why did he immediately ask for an outright release after one short phone conference? I'm also wondering why all the mudslinging started from his family and agent before that phone conversation. His recent interview was all about himself and not about the Packers as a team. I've given Brett a lot of leaway in the past for his actions on and off the field, I've been called and Favre apologists for it, but I look at the facts and find it hard to believe he truly wants to play for the Pack.
:idea: :idea: :idea:
In my opinion, this is the case. The facts say as much. The rest is media posturing so he doesn't get lambasted by his fans and minimize the damage to the considerable goodwill he's built up over the years.

Brett Favre has dumped us folks. He wants to be a Viking, and he wants to be seen as the martyr by laying the blame on Ted Thompson.

[sheepshead]

(quoting Patler): "The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?"


This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!

If it is so obvious, why have so many fans and sportswriters made statements to the effect that it goes without saying the Packers would be a better team in 2008 with Favre as the QB?

Did TT let Sharper go because he thought they would be just as good with a rookie starting?

Did TT not re-sign Rivera go because he thought any old guard would be just as good?

Did TT release Wahle because he thought they could win just as easily without him?

I would suggest the answers to the last three questions are : No. No. and No. All were done because situations required that they be done, even though all would likely have a negative impact in the season they happened. The GM has to have a mixed outlook of the long-term good of the team, and the best success in the upcoming season. If he looked only at the upcoming season, few rookies would make the team.

I also think many people think the same is true with the Favre situation, that for 2008 the team is worse off without him, but the situation got to a point that required it. I'm not convinced of that, and I think TT and MM believe their ultimate chance of playoff success in 2008 is no worse with Rodgers as their QB. This may not be a decision based solely on the long-term good of the team, it may also reflect their feelings about success in 2008.

Youre mistaken-if he thought he couldnt replace those guys(you can debate whether he was successful) he would not have let them go. I would have also let those guys go, you can only pay OL so much and Sharper (at that time) had lost it as far as I could tell.

Again, if TT didnt think Arod was ready to run this offense and win football games, we wouldnt be having this discussion. You want TT to predict the final record with Arod and with Favre?? Dude, there is no debate here. Take a look at what the GM of an NFL teams job description is.

[Patler]

Youre mistaken-if he thought he couldnt replace those guys(you can debate whether he was successful) he would not have let them go. I would have also let those guys go, you can only pay OL so much and Sharper (at that time) had lost it as far as I could tell.

Again, if TT didnt think Arod was ready to run this offense and win football games, we wouldnt be having this discussion. You want TT to predict the final record with Arod and with Favre?? Dude, there is no debate here. Take a look at what the GM of an NFL teams job description is.

I seriously doubt that TT thought his replacement guards would be as good as the all-pro Rivera and the soon-to-be all-pro Wahle. He knew the replacements would not be as good that year, but long term status of the team required that they be allowed to leave.

Sure Rodgers can run the offense and win games, but that wasn't the question. The question was, who gives the team the best chance of winning it all in 2008. An awful lot of national writers and GB fans have very unequivocally said the answer to that question is Favre.

GMs have to have much more focus on the long-term situation than you give them credit for.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan makes a very good point above: the secondary effect of trading Favre to some crap team. He could easily be released or re-traded, and end up with the Vikings or Bears.

I wouldn't absolutely preclude a really really good offer--like a first round pick or better, though, as I really doubt Favre would have all that great a year regardless of who he might end up with.

That idea has to at least be in the back of Brett's mind too--less talent around him, the possibility of having to learn a new scheme, terminology, etc., all lessening his effectiveness--not to mention the fact that he stated he doesn't want to prepare like he did last year. I think he could step in and play a few games effectively--like if Rodgers got injured, but a whole season, or even half? He had a hard time last year in the absolute peak of conditioning and preparation.

Regarding the record, etc. with Rodgers compared with Favre, maybe a few know-nothing media types and some fans think we'd be better with Favre, but Thompson, McCarthy, me, and some others are confident Rodgers will do the job as good as Favre last year and much better than Favre would this year. I bet the detractors saying otherwise are the same ones who predicted doom and gloom last year too--instead of foreseeing the great season.

[sheepshead]

Youre mistaken-if he thought he couldnt replace those guys(you can debate whether he was successful) he would not have let them go. I would have also let those guys go, you can only pay OL so much and Sharper (at that time) had lost it as far as I could tell.

Again, if TT didnt think Arod was ready to run this offense and win football games, we wouldnt be having this discussion. You want TT to predict the final record with Arod and with Favre?? Dude, there is no debate here. Take a look at what the GM of an NFL teams job description is.

I seriously doubt that TT thought his replacement guards would be as good as the all-pro Rivera and the soon-to-be all-pro Wahle. He knew the replacements would not be as good that year, but long term status of the team required that they be allowed to leave.

Sure Rodgers can run the offense and win games, but that wasn't the question. The question was, who gives the team the best chance of winning it all in 2008. An awful lot of national writers and GB fans have very unequivocally said the answer to that question is Favre.

GMs have to have much more focus on the long-term situation than you give them credit for.

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

[Patler]

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:


The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

[swede]

Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/boy_hand_raised.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why do they call it "dope" anyway?

[sheepshead]

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:


The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

[imscott72]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man. Not any other NFL team b ut he has been handcuffed.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler.

Are you fucking retarded? He looks very ready and strong? Looks rested? His arm LOOKS good?

What are you? Have you ever played a sport before? Do you wear pink ballerina outfits while you post on PR?

Rodgers is NOT a rookie. A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Not where Rodgers is... I have no idea how you can extrapolate Favre's ability to play an ENTIRE season based on that interview. Shit, what's his record in the cold playoffs?

Of course he's fucking rested.

HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.

jesus, i thought you were *ok* despite scott always bashing on you but man... you're just like 7 fries short of a happy meal.




now this is where you tell me that im sick and you feel sorry for me and that i need jesus and all of that since you don't have anything to really say to me.

:lol:

[imscott72]

I look forward to this season because I think a lot of people are going to be suprised that Brett is very replacable.

Fine Harrell.

I've got $50 here that says the Packers won't reach 12 wins next year. If you think Rodgers is going to be so surprising in terms of replacing Favre, put your money where your mouth is.

I agree with Leaper. With Rodgers I think 10-6 is a possibility given the strength of the overall team (and assuming Rodgers stays healthy, and that's a big assumption). With Favre we could be looking at 13-3 and another division title. Brett's experience and chemistry with the offense can't be overlooked here when choosing between a Hall of Famer and a 1st year starter.

[MJZiggy]

Hell, I'd take that bet (but I don't have $50 :( )

[MJZiggy]

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:


The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

Sheep, apparently you've never heard the dictum "there is no stupid question." There is no need in this thread to be cursing at people, and you've been asked specifically to speak to the ideas and you continue to berate the poster--and one of the best, most intelligent posters we have here? He knows a truckload more about football and the NFL than you ever will. Apparently a lot more about how to treat people as well.

[sheepshead]

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:


The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

Sheep, apparently you've never heard the dictum "there is no stupid question." There is no need in this thread to be cursing at people, and you've been asked specifically to speak to the ideas and you continue to berate the poster--and one of the best, most intelligent posters we have here? He knows a truckload more about football and the NFL than you ever will. Apparently a lot more about how to treat people as well.

I dont slam the poster, i slam the post. If he is so proficient and knowledgeable then he can defend himself, no?

This is just one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. It's basis is ridiculous if you apply just a wee bit of critical thinking before you type. Besides, "there is no stupid question" applies in 6th grade. You can only assume the questions valid if you dont think TT and MM even do the day to day functions of their respective jobs correctly.

(must you stick your nose in everything?)

[MJZiggy]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

[sheepshead]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

You have way too much time on your hands--but carry on as you will.

[Rastak]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

You have way too much time on your hands--but carry on as you will.


She's also 100% right.

[sheepshead]

scroll baack ohhhh police of all forums. I tried at least 3 times to challenge his view point, nicely(as i can be). He ignored it because ..well i dont know why.

Heres another way of looking at it. Do you think for one minute that arod would still be on this team if they didnt think he was good enough to start this september? wouldnt we have made a change by now? how many teams needed qbs over the last 3 years. this is not even a question in the eyes of TT and MM .

[Tarlam!]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

Is this where I get to exclaim "I told you so!"?? :twisted:

Ah Sheepdip, you just refuse to get it. Posters here love a good, fair debate.

DON'T CALL PEOPLE NAMES OR QUESTION THEIR INTELLIGENCE and you won't have anybody poking their noses into anything. Are you too stupid to understand the simplest forms of polite forum behaviour you fucking cretin?

[Patler]

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

"Being time for" for a player does NOT absolutley mean the management thinks he is better than the player replaced. A team is a mixture and blend of components, with the goal being that the overall combination is better than before. They very much could believe that Rodgers time has come to start, even though they also believe Favre would be a better player in 2008, because they are also looking to 2009 and beyond.

I will ask a simple question that perhaps even you can deliberate; If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they tell Favre they wanted him back before he retired? As a follow-up question If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they entertain the thought of Favre "un-retiring" the end of March? Both of those actions are completely inconsistent with your perceived absolute that they think Rodgers gives them the better chance. If they felt that, wouldn't they have encouraged Favre to retire, and wouldn't they have rebuffed his un-retiring talk the first time?

My thought is this, (which you should have understood from my initial post): I suspect they recognize Favre is still generally a better QB, and might help win a game or so during the season that Rodgers will not. But, they think they can make the playoffs regardless, and at the end of the season they believe Rodgers will be a better option than a 39 year old Favre in the playoffs.

Now, since you seem to think it is "clever" or otherwise a mark of your strength or prowess to swear at me or call me names, I will simply end this and not engage in further discussion with you if you continue to do so. You are not worth it, and have had no intelligent insights or comment to offer in this discussion anyway. In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.

[Patler]

scroll baack ohhhh police of all forums. I tried at least 3 times to challenge his view point, nicely(as i can be). He ignored it because ..well i dont know why.

Heres another way of looking at it. Do you think for one minute that arod would still be on this team if they didnt think he was good enough to start this september? wouldnt we have made a change by now? how many teams needed qbs over the last 3 years. this is not even a question in the eyes of TT and MM .

You seem to confuse "good enough to start" with who might be better.

Collins has been "good enough to start". Has he been better than Sharper?
We have had a string of guards "good enough to start". Has any one been beeter than Wahle would have been over that time?

[Tarlam!]

In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.

Sheepdip, you, sir, have just been Patlerized.

:bclap:

[Patler]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

duh?

This was your first "challenge" to my initial post. Did you REALLY expect a response? I responded to others who made statements or arguments. You provided nothing to which I could respond.

[Patler]

That canker sore that appears every 3 months or so?? Damn

This, I believe was your second post. Did you expect me to respond?

[Patler]

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?[/quote]

This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!

The above was your third post, and guess what? I did respond. See below:


[quote]sheepshead wrote:
(quoting Patler): "The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?"


This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!


If it is so obvious, why have so many fans and sportswriters made statements to the effect that it goes without saying the Packers would be a better team in 2008 with Favre as the QB?

Did TT let Sharper go because he thought they would be just as good with a rookie starting?

Did TT not re-sign Rivera go because he thought any old guard would be just as good?

Did TT release Wahle because he thought they could win just as easily without him?

I would suggest the answers to the last three questions are : No. No. and No. All were done because situations required that they be done, even though all would likely have a negative impact in the season they happened. The GM has to have a mixed outlook of the long-term good of the team, and the best success in the upcoming season. If he looked only at the upcoming season, few rookies would make the team.

I also think many people think the same is true with the Favre situation, that for 2008 the team is worse off without him, but the situation got to a point that required it. I'm not convinced of that, and I think TT and MM believe their ultimate chance of playoff success in 2008 is no worse with Rodgers as their QB. This may not be a decision based solely on the long-term good of the team, it may also reflect their feelings about success in 2008.

[bobblehead]

In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.

Sheepdip, you, sir, have just been Patlerized.

:bclap:

I could school patler in debate...I just happen to agree with him most of the time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, Patler ain't so hot. I have kicked his ass many times.

[Patler]

ya, Patler ain't so hot. I have kicked his ass many times.

Ya, it still hurts!

[bobblehead]

ya, Patler ain't so hot. I have kicked his ass many times.

Ya, it still hurts!

did he say pricked or kicked?

[Deputy Nutz]

scroll baack ohhhh police of all forums. I tried at least 3 times to challenge his view point, nicely(as i can be). He ignored it because ..well i dont know why.

Heres another way of looking at it. Do you think for one minute that arod would still be on this team if they didnt think he was good enough to start this september? wouldnt we have made a change by now? how many teams needed qbs over the last 3 years. this is not even a question in the eyes of TT and MM .

Maybe he doesn't need to communicate with assholes?

[sheepshead]

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

"Being time for" for a player does NOT absolutley mean the management thinks he is better than the player replaced. A team is a mixture and blend of components, with the goal being that the overall combination is better than before. They very much could believe that Rodgers time has come to start, even though they also believe Favre would be a better player in 2008, because they are also looking to 2009 and beyond.

I will ask a simple question that perhaps even you can deliberate; If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they tell Favre they wanted him back before he retired? As a follow-up question If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they entertain the thought of Favre "un-retiring" the end of March? Both of those actions are completely inconsistent with your perceived absolute that they think Rodgers gives them the better chance. If they felt that, wouldn't they have encouraged Favre to retire, and wouldn't they have rebuffed his un-retiring talk the first time?

My thought is this, (which you should have understood from my initial post): I suspect they recognize Favre is still generally a better QB, and might help win a game or so during the season that Rodgers will not. But, they think they can make the playoffs regardless, and at the end of the season they believe Rodgers will be a better option than a 39 year old Favre in the playoffs.

Now, since you seem to think it is "clever" or otherwise a mark of your strength or prowess to swear at me or call me names, I will simply end this and not engage in further discussion with you if you continue to do so. You are not worth it, and have had no intelligent insights or comment to offer in this discussion anyway. In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.


This has nothing to do with TT's feelings. They, contrary to some opinions have bent over backwards for Brett. They believe ARod is the guy. They have had him for 3 years. If he wasnt the guy. He would not be here. He would have been traded. Understand? He is not here to be a back up. He is ready in the eyes of TT and MM. Any accommodation for Brett has been in respect to his service and his accomplishments. You sir need to step back and understand the roll of a GM in the NFL. I only used colorful language because I was being ignored or you went off on some tangent about Marco Fucking Rivera or God knows who. You are way too defensive for your own good. Think about the situation at hand instead of running emotionally coming up with half baked conspiracy theories.

My posts arent about me or my ego or anything of the sort. The point above cannot be disputed unless you think TT and MM are incompetent boobs and running this thing by the seat of their pants. The record speaks otherwise.

I dont know if the recent Robert Brooks comment rumor is true, but it would fall in line with what I am attempted to point out to you.

[Fritz]

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

"Being time for" for a player does NOT absolutley mean the management thinks he is better than the player replaced. A team is a mixture and blend of components, with the goal being that the overall combination is better than before. They very much could believe that Rodgers time has come to start, even though they also believe Favre would be a better player in 2008, because they are also looking to 2009 and beyond.

I will ask a simple question that perhaps even you can deliberate; If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they tell Favre they wanted him back before he retired? As a follow-up question If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they entertain the thought of Favre "un-retiring" the end of March? Both of those actions are completely inconsistent with your perceived absolute that they think Rodgers gives them the better chance. If they felt that, wouldn't they have encouraged Favre to retire, and wouldn't they have rebuffed his un-retiring talk the first time?

My thought is this, (which you should have understood from my initial post): I suspect they recognize Favre is still generally a better QB, and might help win a game or so during the season that Rodgers will not. But, they think they can make the playoffs regardless, and at the end of the season they believe Rodgers will be a better option than a 39 year old Favre in the playoffs.

Now, since you seem to think it is "clever" or otherwise a mark of your strength or prowess to swear at me or call me names, I will simply end this and not engage in further discussion with you if you continue to do so. You are not worth it, and have had no intelligent insights or comment to offer in this discussion anyway. In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.


This has nothing to do with TT's feelings. They, contrary to some opinions have bent over backwards for Brett. They believe ARod is the guy. They have had him for 3 years. If he wasnt the guy. He would not be here. He would have been traded. Understand? He is not here to be a back up. He is ready in the eyes of TT and MM. Any accommodation for Brett has been in respect to his service and his accomplishments. You sir need to step back and understand the roll of a GM in the NFL. I only used colorful language because I was being ignored or you went off on some tangent about Marco Fucking Rivera or God knows who. You are way too defensive for your own good. Think about the situation at hand instead of running emotionally coming up with half baked conspiracy theories.

My posts arent about me or my ego or anything of the sort. The point above cannot be disputed unless you think TT and MM are incompetent boobs and running this thing by the seat of their pants. The record speaks otherwise.

I dont know if the recent Robert Brooks comment rumor is true, but it would fall in line with what I am attempted to point out to you.

A couple of comments, oh Sheep. First, if I understand correctly, your original point was that there needed to be no discussion as to whether or not TT and MM thought Rodgers might be so ready that he'd do just as well or better than Favre, so the team could afford to not bother with Favre's hemming and hawing. Your idea is that this was so obvious there was no debate possible.

Patler and others responded, suggesting that it was possible that (and Patler named the Wahle/Rivera and the Sharper cases as evidence, not as a "tangent") a GM might need to look at both the short term and long term health of the team, and from that perspective it's possible that TT saw Favre as in fact a better short term answer at QB, but given the need to think past just this year, he decided that it was better to not beg Favre for another year but to carry on with Rodgers.

Thus, the original premise of this thread would appear to be valid. It's a question of the short- and long term.

Secondly, your answer to Patler's question above appears to be that " Any accommodation for Brett has been in respect to his service and his accomplishments." This seems to contradict your earlier position, in which you staked out the territory that TT and MM feel that goiong with Rodgers is their best chance to win, and so that's why they didn't push for Favre to come back. If they were willing to take the PR lump because they believe so strongly in Rodgers, why would they then accommodate Favre out of "respect for his service and his accomplishments." That would suggest that TT has to consider more than just who the best player for this year would be...

Finally, Sheep, Patler has earned a great deal of respect on this site. He doesn't call names and has a reputation for doing research and using facts and thoughtful analysis. He doesn't call people names and get into squabbles. Other people operate differently here and are just as accepted. But your name-calling and, even in your post above, your constant descent into critiquing Patler's personality ("You are way too defensive for your own good") not only don't support the point you are supposedly trying to make, they suggest that (and any debater knows this) you don't have much legitimate ammo for your side, so you are attacking the person, not the ideas he offers.

In sum, you got nothing, Sheep.

[sheepshead]

Why is this about me? All im saying is if this was 2006 you might have a point. 3 years of camps and game films and more than $5 million in salary. TT et al believe ARod is ready.

If you can put aside all your assumptions, hearsay and innuendo and understand this:

If he wasnt ready for 2008, 2009 and/or beyond- he would be gone by now, he wouldn't be a member of the Green Bay Packers.

[Fritz]

I don't think many people would disagree with that last statement. Yes, I agree with you - the coaches and TT think he's ready.

[Carolina_Packer]

I don't think many people would disagree with that last statement. Yes, I agree with you - the coaches and TT think he's ready.

And since he was there, they probably felt less inclined to placate him in terms of waiting for him to unretire whenever he was going to do that. They just decided amongst themselves to move on and were glad they had A-Rod. If they weren't confident in him even after Brett retired, they would have given Brett a lot more leeway to decide whenever he saw fit.

Perhaps moving on was more of a sign of confidence in A-Rod than lack of confidence in Favre.

[Zool]

Perhaps moving on was more of a sign of confidence in A-Rod than lack of confidence in Favre.

Excellent way to put it.

[sharpe1027]

Jees - Ok..TT gets paid to put the best team on the field that he can. MM gets paid to win games and work closely with said GM. Of course they "are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre?"

Of course they are of that opinion? They believed that Favre was the better option only a few months ago. Where does that leave your theory? Something happened in the meantime and I don't think Favre's QBing ability suddenly dropped in a month or so.

I'm of the opinion it had to do with Favre posturing to get out of his contract and the Packers knowing all along that was his intention. Of course it could be any number of things, not all of them directly tied to whether Favre would ultimately have more success than Rodgers.



Do you REALLY think this is all based on ego and hurt feelings instead of people doing their jobs?

No, I don't. You pick one point out all the points presented and act as if that was the point of the entire post, nice, really nice. It baffles me how you can seemingly miss the entire point of my post. I wasn't expressing my personal opinion, I was showing that there were other possiblities and that you look like a fool when you state that it is so clear cut that there can't be any other explanation.



While we can debate whether or not TT should suck it up at this point, there is no question he feels he is doing whats best for the Packers.

Yes, most likely.

[sheepshead]

I don't think many people would disagree with that last statement. Yes, I agree with you - the coaches and TT think he's ready.

And since he was there, they probably felt less inclined to placate him in terms of waiting for him to unretire whenever he was going to do that. They just decided amongst themselves to move on and were glad they had A-Rod. If they weren't confident in him even after Brett retired, they would have given Brett a lot more leeway to decide whenever he saw fit.

Perhaps moving on was more of a sign of confidence in A-Rod than lack of confidence in Favre.


'xactly

[Fritz]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

Yes, the coaches have confidence in Rodgers. They may even think, all factors included, that they're better off - certainly long term, and when you factor in the backpedaling that would have to ensue to have Favre back at the helm (see Tony Dungy's comments on what a coach says to his team when a HOF QB retires) - maybe even the short term, with Rodgers. But that's a little different than if you took all the extraneous stuff out (is Favre really in shape? Did his retire-unretire game divide the locker room and cause the coach to lose cridiblilty?)and just asked them which guy, on the field for one game or one drive, would you rather have? The coaches and GM are not so ego-driven that they'd just say they like Rodgers better in that situation. They're not stupid. It's just that there are more factors than that one question involved.

[The Leaper]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

I don't know how you can argue that Fritz...at least in terms of 2008. Experience is a HUGE component in the NFL, and there is nowhere that is more apparent than at the QB position.

Favre is coming off an MVP caliber year and has gobs of experience...not to mention HOF talent. Trying to argue that Rodgers somehow is comparable to that is insanity.

I get the notion that Rodgers is ready, there isn't a better time than now to give him the reins, and that Rodgers is a better long term option. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that Rodgers could be anywhere near comparable to Favre in 2008. It isn't true.

If you really can't believe that, go look at the results first year QBs have had over the last 20 years...and let me know what percentage have a Pro Bowl caliber season or led their team to the playoffs. Let me clue you in...the percentage is very small.

[sheepshead]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

Yes, the coaches have confidence in Rodgers. They may even think, all factors included, that they're better off - certainly long term, and when you factor in the backpedaling that would have to ensue to have Favre back at the helm (see Tony Dungy's comments on what a coach says to his team when a HOF QB retires) - maybe even the short term, with Rodgers. But that's a little different than if you took all the extraneous stuff out (is Favre really in shape? Did his retire-unretire game divide the locker room and cause the coach to lose cridiblilty?)and just asked them which guy, on the field for one game or one drive, would you rather have? The coaches and GM are not so ego-driven that they'd just say they like Rodgers better in that situation. They're not stupid. It's just that there are more factors than that one question involved.

The original question was , and i'll paraphrase with a statement "Hey maybe the Packer brass thinks Aaron Rodgers is ready to start at quarterback for the Green Bay Packers NOW!!"

[vince]

It is far from a certainty that Favre will have the same kind of year he had last year if he were to return. He's obviously getting old and last year was an anomoly in terms of his performance since 2001. He does not possess "Hall of Fame talent" any more. The facts show that, over the last six years, Favre has been an above average - albeit very reliable - quarterback. Suggesting that he's been more is ignoring reality, and/or bleeding in his MVP years into the equation. That was a LONG time ago in football years.

He has more experience than any quarterback ever to play the game, but he isn't as good as he used to be, and he's getting worse. He's going to fall of the cliff soon. No one knows when "soon" is exactly, but it could very well be this year - if he were to return.

[sharpe1027]

The original question was , and i'll paraphrase with a statement "Hey maybe the Packer brass thinks Aaron Rodgers is ready to start at quarterback for the Green Bay Packers NOW!!"

Your paraphrase leaves out a very important part of the original question, which had to do with a comparison of what the Packers thought of their chances with Rodgers vs. Favre, not just whether Rodgers was ready to start. Huge difference (they can both be ready to start) and a much more difficult (arugably impossible to be certain) question to answer.

Maybe if you took the time to read the original question and think it through you wouldn't have thought that the answer was so simple...

[The Leaper]

He's getting old and last year was an anomoly in terms of his performance since 2001.

An anomoly how? Was he lucky? Did his supporting cast carry him?

The fact that he carried the entire offense the first 6-8 games of the year when we had no running game to speak of is somehow lost on you?

We know why his INT numbers went up under Sherman...he wasn't held accountable. It wasn't due to a lack of skill. We know why Favre's numbers were poor in 2005 and 2006...it is called injuries and lack of talent.


He does not possess Hall of Fame talent any more.

I would agree. He still possesses the talent to be a top 5 QB in the league RIGHT NOW. He proved as much last year.

Favre's arm will probably be good enough to play in the NFL until he is 45. He's a physical freak in that regard. His legs are already gone for the most part, so he can't lose much more there. I don't see where the massive dropoff in his play is going to come from.

Do I expect him to play as well as he did in 2007? No.

Do I expect Rodgers to play as well as Favre could in 2008? No.

I'm equally confident of both.

[sheepshead]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

I don't know how you can argue that Fritz...at least in terms of 2008. Experience is a HUGE component in the NFL, and there is nowhere that is more apparent than at the QB position.

Favre is coming off an MVP caliber year and has gobs of experience...not to mention HOF talent. Trying to argue that Rodgers somehow is comparable to that is insanity.

I get the notion that Rodgers is ready, there isn't a better time than now to give him the reins, and that Rodgers is a better long term option. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that Rodgers could be anywhere near comparable to Favre in 2008. It isn't true.

If you really can't believe that, go look at the results first year QBs have had over the last 20 years...and let me know what percentage have a Pro Bowl caliber season or led their team to the playoffs. Let me clue you in...the percentage is very small.


I havent seen or heard the term "gobs" in a while...cool.

[Tarlam!]

His legs are already gone for the most part, so he can't lose much more there.

Do I expect him to play as well as he did in 2007? No.

Do I expect Rodgers to play as well as Favre could in 2008? No.


Favre or A-Rod would/will rely heavily on the play of our O-Line, especially on passing downs for protection. I think it is safe to assume Brett can get the ball out faster, but A-Rod proved in Dallas that he has legs. To me, the physical attributes seem to be a wash, notwithsatanding armstrength.

I would be concerned, though, with Favre's legs being gone. I don't think that they are, I think he runs selectively to avoid getting smashed in the mouth all too often, though he had one or two sweet runs last season that I recall.

[Joemailman]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

I don't know how you can argue that Fritz...at least in terms of 2008. Experience is a HUGE component in the NFL, and there is nowhere that is more apparent than at the QB position.

Favre is coming off an MVP caliber year and has gobs of experience...not to mention HOF talent. Trying to argue that Rodgers somehow is comparable to that is insanity.

I get the notion that Rodgers is ready, there isn't a better time than now to give him the reins, and that Rodgers is a better long term option. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that Rodgers could be anywhere near comparable to Favre in 2008. It isn't true.

If you really can't believe that, go look at the results first year QBs have had over the last 20 years...and let me know what percentage have a Pro Bowl caliber season or led their team to the playoffs. Let me clue you in...the percentage is very small.

The percentage of first-year QB's succeeding may be small, but I'm sure that TT amd MM would say that Rodgers is not typical of first-year QB's He's a 1st round pick who has had 3 years to learn the offense inside and out, and has been able to observe up close one of the best QB's ever. He's also taking over a team that is talented, deep and coming off a 13-3 season. Not the typical situation for a 1st year QB.

[The Leaper]

Not the typical situation for a 1st year QB.

That is true...I would expect Rodgers to have more success than most first year starters.

However, the guy still only has 59 pass attempts in the NFL at this point. He's got a long way to go before he has a firm grasp of everything that is going on. The greatest learning for a QB happens on the field, not in a classroom or on the sidelines.

Claiming he is going to instantly be as good as a guy who knew our system and tendencies of many opponents inside-out is ridiculous.

[The Leaper]

Favre or A-Rod would/will rely heavily on the play of our O-Line, especially on passing downs for protection. I think it is safe to assume Brett can get the ball out faster, but A-Rod proved in Dallas that he has legs. To me, the physical attributes seem to be a wash, notwithsatanding armstrength.

Rodgers will see more blitzing. Teams did not blitz Favre much at all last season...and those that did were often torched because Favre normally could identify it and know how to attack it. Teams know that Rodgers will not have the understanding or experience to always know where to go with the ball in those situations. While our overall strength on offense will keep it from being an all-out blitzkrieg, Rodgers will see his share of pressure...especially early in the year.

I expect a much lower completion percentage overall and more sacks this season...although we may gain a higher efficiency on 3rd downs because of Rodgers' scrambling. He will pick up some 3rd and 3s that Favre couldn't have done last year.

[Bretsky]

It is far from a certainty that Favre will have the same kind of year he had last year if he were to return. He's obviously getting old and last year was an anomoly in terms of his performance since 2001. He does not possess "Hall of Fame talent" any more. The facts show that, over the last six years, Favre has been an above average - albeit very reliable - quarterback. Suggesting that he's been more is ignoring reality, and/or bleeding in his MVP years into the equation. That was a LONG time ago in football years.

He has more experience than any quarterback ever to play the game, but he isn't as good as he used to be, and he's getting worse. He's going to fall of the cliff soon. No one knows when "soon" is exactly, but it could very well be this year - if he were to return.

You also ignore reality IMO when you fail to look at the WR core Favre has had to throw to over the past six years. One could argue last year's core was well above average for the first time in a while........and look at the numbers he put up when surrounded with an above average cast. One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.

[pack4to84]

I have been watching this thread since it started. Waiting to see if someone would point out the obvious reason for Favre decline or failures of late besides aging. The Tampa 2/Cover 2 defense was designed by Tony Dungy for the Vikings to stop or slow down Favre. Now so many teams run this or similar type of defense, because of the success teams that use it stopped Favre from going nuts on them. For those who don't know why the Tampa 2 defense affects Favre more then other QB's I will point it out for you.

Favre has a cannon of a arm. He throws almost every throw at a low altitude so the Tampa 2 defense of scheme puts a body into every throwing lane. Since Favre throws without an arch its gets batted down or INT by many of the up man in the zone's. Also causing tipped balls the get INT. The weakness of Tampa 2/cover 2 is TE over middle behind the MLB in front of S or Corner routes by a slot receiver/TE. But since Favre throws low altitude MLB seem to knock down or INT many of his passes over the middle. That's why the Packers switched to a faster TE so Favre could hit him deeper causing the MLB to play deeper then Packers would hit a WR doing a crossing route underneath the MLB. Problem with this teams started to realize if Favre waited for the TE to get deeper he wouldn't have as much time to throw it. So later in the year teams force Favre to throw underneath more.

This is why I believe MM and TT in theory are thinking the Rodgers might break this mold of the Tamp2/cover2 defense. Which by the way every team in our division run's. Rodgers throw's with an arch so an 10/15yd out patterns by the WR could be a new weapon in our system this year. This could cause teams running the tamp 2/cover 2 defense would have to play more man2man defense. Tampa 2/cover2 defenses don't use man2man type corners. Which could in return cause mismatches. I know I will take a lot flack for this but I have been saying this to my family and friends for 2 years. I love to watch Favre but I really believe the game has caught up to him. Ever since L.Smith said he knew how to beat Favre and has done it. I wanted to know why his Tamp 2/Cover2 scheme works so well vs Favre.

[vince]

One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.
Absolutely agree Bretsky. That's a very reasonable argument to make, but it can be debated. And it can be debated whether the Packers should be thinking only of 08. An equally reasonable argument can be made for moving on, and I think that's at least part of the point of this thread.

Instead, there's this kind of overly simplistic crap flying around the board in the sheer brilliance that is the "Buy Low, Sell High" thread, "not having [Favre] as our starting QB is absolutely insane..."

I'm pretty sure McCarthy's got his wits about him Pacopete and I'll support his decision in this regard...

[packinpatland]

One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.
Absolutely agree Bretsky. That's a very reasonable argument to make, but it can be debated. And it can be debated whether the Packers should be thinking only of 08. An equally reasonable argument can be made for moving on, and I think that's at least part of the point of this thread.

Instead, there's this kind of overly simplistic crap flying around the board, "not having [Favre] as our starting QB is absolutely insane..."

I'm pretty sure McCarthy's got his wits about him Pacopete and I'll support his decision in this regard...

I agree as well. :wink:

[Bretsky]

One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.
Absolutely agree Bretsky. That's a very reasonable argument to make, but it can be debated. And it can be debated whether the Packers should be thinking only of 08. An equally reasonable argument can be made for moving on, and I think that's at least part of the point of this thread.

Instead, there's this kind of overly simplistic crap flying around the board in the sheer brilliance that is the "Buy Low, Sell High" thread, "not having [Favre] as our starting QB is absolutely insane..."

...


I'd agree with this; being the win now guy and worry about later later you would understand why I remain in the minority in wanting TT and BF to resolve any differences and make things work in Green Bay

[Joemailman]

Bretsky,

I think most people here would still prefer that Favre be the Packer QB in 2008. However, I think the vast majority have stopped believing it can still happen since the Fox interview. Most think Favre burned his bridges here (I'm not so sure), and so have moved on to deciding whether Favre should play with someone else or retire. It doesn't help that Favre has shown no sign that he would like to return to Green Bay.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I find it pretty lame that many of the people who demand that Favre be brought back as a guaranteed starter call those who disagree with them "favre haters", or anti-Favre.

You might not agree with McCarthy's decision to let Favre go, maybe it will prove to be wrong. But to suggest that there is only one right answer is ignorant. Plenty of smart football people agree with TT & MM. It is TT & MM's job to make the hard choice, they can't please everybody.

[Carolina_Packer]

I find it pretty lame that many of the people who demand that Favre be brought back as a guaranteed starter call those who disagree with them "favre haters", or anti-Favre.

You might not agree with McCarthy's decision to let Favre go, maybe it will prove to be wrong. But to suggest that there is only one right answer is ignorant. Plenty of smart football people agree with TT & MM. It is TT & MM's job to make the hard choice, they can't please everybody.

This issue mostly had to do with the timing of Favre's interest to come back. The Favre supporters will say he should have been welcomed back no matter when he made his decision because his ability to lead the team in the short-term trumps all. The anti-Favre/possibly pro TT supporters are sick of the Favre off-season antics and are OK to see him come back in his newly defined role, get traded or stay retired. If Brett could have made up his mind sooner, none of this would be occuring. Conversely, if management had bent more on his comeback and said, "we still think he can play and gives us the best chance to win now", then the matter would also be moot. I guess management saw enough of Rodgers in off-season OTA's and mini-camp to be so confident as to not flinch on a possible guaranteed starting role for Favre.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The anti-Favre/possibly pro TT supporters are sick of the Favre off-season antics and are OK to see him come back in his newly defined role, get traded or stay retired.

OK, but these people are not "anti-Favre."



Conversely, if management had bent more on his comeback and said, "we still think he can play and gives us the best chance to win now", then the matter would also be moot.

they obviously have a different judgement than this. They are looking at a lot of factors.

McGinn's article covered those likely reasons pretty well.

[mraynrand]

pack4to84:


Interesting ideas, and probably have some truth to them, but the bigger factor for the successful Tampa 2 is simply pressure. Favre, like many QBs, reacts to pressure and the Tampa 2 works best when the opposing team gets pressure on Favre. Favre can kill most teams that try to pressure him, but it's harder with the Tampa 2 because they will give you the dink and dunk crap, but limit anything down field. But the key is the pressure. Favre looked bad against Tampa when they really had the guys to create pressure up front - as he did against Philly, Chicago the past several years, against the Rams at their defensive peak, and in some games at Minnesota. The difference with Favre is that unlike other QBs, he at times won't quit on a bad play, and will throw it into coverage/up for grabs to avoid the sack and/or to try to make a play, leading to disasters like 2003 at Philly, 2001 at St. Louis, and 2002 at Tampa.

I have to say, those killer throws, thrown by Favre, are probably the main reason I don't want him to come back - Love the guy, love watching him play, but the killer INTs by Favre, because they are being thrown BY Favre, are just too hard to take anymore.

[sharpe1027]

This issue mostly had to do with the timing of Favre's interest to come back. The Favre supporters will say he should have been welcomed back no matter when he made his decision because his ability to lead the team in the short-term trumps all. The anti-Favre/possibly pro TT supporters are sick of the Favre off-season antics and are OK to see him come back in his newly defined role, get traded or stay retired. If Brett could have made up his mind sooner, none of this would be occuring. Conversely, if management had bent more on his comeback and said, "we still think he can play and gives us the best chance to win now", then the matter would also be moot. I guess management saw enough of Rodgers in off-season OTA's and mini-camp to be so confident as to not flinch on a possible guaranteed starting role for Favre.

IMHO, the issue mostly has to do with Favre testing the waters with the Vikings, then after only one, single phone conference with the Packers, he immediately asks for an unconditional release. I said before the Vikings crap came out that I didn't understand why he didn't followup the initial conversation unless he wasn't that interested in playing for the Packers anymore. It seems all to possible that Brett didn't make up his mind earlier because he wanted to put the Packers in a difficult position.

Favre goes on record as complaining about TT telling untruths, at the same time he knows that he was dealing with the Vikings behind the Packer's back. If the stories are true, he has lost his moral compass. I'm sure he thought he'd never get caught, that doesn't make what he did any better.

[cheesner]

This issue mostly had to do with the timing of Favre's interest to come back. The Favre supporters will say he should have been welcomed back no matter when he made his decision because his ability to lead the team in the short-term trumps all. The anti-Favre/possibly pro TT supporters are sick of the Favre off-season antics and are OK to see him come back in his newly defined role, get traded or stay retired. If Brett could have made up his mind sooner, none of this would be occuring. Conversely, if management had bent more on his comeback and said, "we still think he can play and gives us the best chance to win now", then the matter would also be moot. I guess management saw enough of Rodgers in off-season OTA's and mini-camp to be so confident as to not flinch on a possible guaranteed starting role for Favre.

IMHO, the issue mostly has to do with Favre testing the waters with the Vikings, then after only one, single phone conference with the Packers, he immediately asks for an unconditional release. I said before the Vikings crap came out that I didn't understand why he didn't followup the initial conversation unless he wasn't that interested in playing for the Packers anymore. It seems all to possible that Brett didn't make up his mind earlier because he wanted to put the Packers in a difficult position.

Favre goes on record as complaining about TT telling untruths, at the same time he knows that he was dealing with the Vikings behind the Packer's back. If the stories are true, he has lost his moral compass. I'm sure he thought he'd never get caught, that doesn't make what he did any better.
Favre has always been a dichotomy. He seems so simple and down to earth, but he has his moments of self-absorption. His early career porpoised. Whenever he had a great game, he almost always followed it up with a poor game. Just listening to his press conferences after a great game, I thought the praise for his performance went to his head. It seemed he then didn't prepare as well for the next week.

I am a huge fan, I have a Favre jersey, authographed football, a bobble head on my desk, a jersey for my 3 year old daughter, etc. At least 2 dozen people have asked me at my work about the situation, knowing I was a big fan.

All of that does not mean that I am going to side with Favre on this. It is time to move on, and for Brett to ride off into the sunset on his tractor. I am still a fan, always will be. But he is not the Green Bay Packers, never was. He is only a small part in a huge legacy. Every legend there comes a time when the team is better off in the long run without him. That time is now for Brett.

The biggest thing for me is his wavering back and forth - couple that with his demeanor during the Giants game. One of the biggest games of Favre's career, and he did not look like he wanted to be there. If he is not 100% committed with a passion, he isn't going to make it the whole season. I have seen his dedications steadily decrease over the last few years. It is time.