This might cheer some of us up a little bit

[channtheman]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8yDNW_8nefQ

I forgot how impressive Rodgers really was in that Dallas game and I think he looked great watching that highlight film. Obviously it isn't going to show the bad plays but I would really like to rewatch that game now and see just how well he did.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WEAh4ITYHc4&feature=related

Some preseason footage here also.

[MOBB DEEP]

thanks, i needed that....he's kinda quick too.

but, yo, our WR's are BEASTS; with the yac's they produce arod should fare well in the pack system

lol, why did they show lord favre lookn so disgusted on the sideline towards the beginning though? LOL that look he has when he's screwing up bigtime

[BallHawk]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_c8F680VT4

I found this amusing.

[channtheman]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_c8F680VT4

I found this amusing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Chevelle2]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WEAh4ITYHc4&feature=related

Some preseason footage here also.


:glug:

[mraynrand]

but, yo, our WR's are BEASTS; with the yac's they produce arod should fare well in the pack system


I agree. You have to like all the skill players on the offense. It's a tremendously deep group, at WR, RB, and even TE. Possible weak links at guard and danger with aging tackles, but WOW, Rodgers may only need to be reasonably good to manage what should be an explosive offense.

[Zool]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8yDNW_8nefQ

I forgot how impressive Rodgers really was in that Dallas game and I think he looked great watching that highlight film. Obviously it isn't going to show the bad plays but I would really like to rewatch that game now and see just how well he did.

I like how Collinsworth opens by saying "the Packers arent going to win much with Rodgers at QB" then at the end "looks like the Packers have a legitimate shot at winning in the playoffs with Rodgers". Is NFLN getting a new team this year?

Also, Greg Jennings is a stud. That move he puts on after his first catch is sick.

[Badgerinmaine]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_c8F680VT4

I found this amusing.

:lol: :lol: :tup:

[The Leaper]

I agree. You have to like all the skill players on the offense. It's a tremendously deep group, at WR, RB, and even TE. Possible weak links at guard and danger with aging tackles, but WOW, Rodgers may only need to be reasonably good to manage what should be an explosive offense.

But that's the whole reason why I just don't understand why the Packers want to push Favre out the door.

I KNOW Favre would be at least reasonably good. He was great last season, and there is no reason to believe he is going to suddenly fall off. His arm strength would still be there IMO...his knowledge would still be there...those are the two aspects he needs with this amount of talent around him.

We HOPE Rodgers will, we THINK Rodgers will...we don't KNOW it. If Rodgers doesn't shine, Thompson is wasting a great opportunity to make a title run with all of the needed offensive pieces in place...and having two capable QBs there in case of injury. Sure, Rodgers may be better for it 2-3 years from now...but who know where the team will be then? Clifton, Tauscher, Driver, Harris, Pickett, Kampman and Woodson all could have diminished skills by then...and you've missed your window to aim for a title.

That is really what is puzzling to me. I understand moving on with Rodgers...it has to happen at some point. Why you would do it when your team has shown consistent improvement the previous two years and were on the doorstep of the Super Bowl is what puzzles me.

[mraynrand]

I agree. You have to like all the skill players on the offense. It's a tremendously deep group, at WR, RB, and even TE. Possible weak links at guard and danger with aging tackles, but WOW, Rodgers may only need to be reasonably good to manage what should be an explosive offense.

But that's the whole reason why I just don't understand why the Packers want to push Favre out the door.

That is really what is puzzling to me. I understand moving on with Rodgers...it has to happen at some point. Why you would do it when your team has shown consistent improvement the previous two years and were on the doorstep of the Super Bowl is what puzzles me.

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

[The Leaper]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

[Cheesehead Craig]

This always makes me feel better:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b259/abomb8604/Rachel_Watson.jpg

[Zool]

How much more incentive does Brett need? Not like Garcia is a threat, he doesnt swing that way.

[mraynrand]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

[oregonpackfan]

This always makes me feel better:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b259/abomb8604/Rachel_Watson.jp
g

She would look so much more attractive in a green and gold outfit! :)

[Patler]

But that's the whole reason why I just don't understand why the Packers want to push Favre out the door.


I think fans all wonder that. It's not something I intend to argue about, because I don't have any personal knowledge about it, but from what I can piece together it stems from the following:

1. There is an ongoing story that some on the coaching staff thought he completely failed to show leadership in the Giants game. A trip to the Super Bowl was on the line, and some felt Favre no longer had the passion to win that game at all costs. Some thought he was simply going through the motions in the second half, waiting for the game to get over. I have read and heard that some were lobbying for TT to encourage Favre to retire because of it.

2. Favre has had a lot of poor playoff performances, and some have no confidence that in a big playoff game he won't succumb to his playground tendencies and make critical errors that are hard to overcome. They aren't confident that he will string 3 or 4 games together without a bad one in a playoff run.

3. He has lost more off his "fastball" than has been let on, and since he has always been one to try to zip passes into tight coverage, he will have problems. They were able to control him last year, so he threw fewer high risk passes, but Favre was not happy doing it, and they were not confident they could control him again.

4. I heard from what I believe was a credible source that MM was absolutely fed up with Favre after his flip-flopping in late March/April; and he refused to waste more time on dealing with Favre. That's why he sent Campen down to talk to Favre.

5. They really do have the utmost confidence in Rodgers, and while he may not make the great plays Favre has in the past, he will make very few dumb mistakes. He has bought in completely to what MM wants to do in the passing game, and Favre really didn't.


Again, these are not my views, just some things I have pieced together over the last few weeks that may indicate why the Packers are doing what they are. If you read between the lines, I think it might have been as much or more that the coaching staff thought the Favre days should end than that TT did. TT is taking the heat, but the coaches were ready to go with Rodgers over Favre.

[Chevelle2]

I like how Collinsworth opens by saying "the Packers arent going to win much with Rodgers at QB" then at the end "looks like the Packers have a legitimate shot at winning in the playoffs with Rodgers".

I remember Boomer Esiason in the DEN/GB preseason game in Madison in 99 saying "You know....Donald Driver...(laugh) hes not gonna make this team, but you still have to make that catch"

[MOBB DEEP]

I agree. You have to like all the skill players on the offense. It's a tremendously deep group, at WR, RB, and even TE. Possible weak links at guard and danger with aging tackles, but WOW, Rodgers may only need to be reasonably good to manage what should be an explosive offense.

But that's the whole reason why I just don't understand why the Packers want to push Favre out the door.

That is really what is puzzling to me. I understand moving on with Rodgers...it has to happen at some point. Why you would do it when your team has shown consistent improvement the previous two years and were on the doorstep of the Super Bowl is what puzzles me.

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.



its all being ruined by pride.....TT got mad b/c of the waffling and Lord got mad b/c his but wasnt kissed yet again

i was sick when i realized brett was walkn away from all that talent/opportunity that fool sherman didnt afford him and even sicker when tt, et. al didnt welcome him back with open arms b/c of said oppotunity.

brett PROB shoulda come back with hat in hand apologizn for the waffln. but since tt is spose to be smart and understand the BIG PICTURE, he shoulda realized that that would be hard for the modern ego maniacal athlete and just given him another chance for the sake of Packer nation (FORGET PERSONAL AGENDAS TT)

[texaspackerbacker]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

[Spaulding]

Thanks Patler for the insight. Most of that is news to me but seems to reaffirm my feeling that it's not really TT that's the barrier but that it's McCarthy (or in this case most of the staff) that wants to move forward with Rodgers.

I also never have gotten why all the posters believe TT's got an ego. Here's a former player that each year had to scrap for a roster spot (what ego is there in that), doesn't seek the lime light (again suggests it's not an ego thing) and IMO is just steadfast in how he's learned/beleived a GM should do things.

He decides on a value for a player (whether this is a democracy within the organization or not I'm not sure but from what I gather he does solicit the input of others) and sticks to it. He doesn't overbid and is overall quite conservative in his approach.

In summary the consumate poker player and a fine GM in my eyes. The one knock is that's not a charismatic or polished public speaker. Who the hell cares.

I think we're in good hands between TT and M3. Then again this will all blow up if Rodgers goes down with an injury early in the season.

[BallHawk]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WEAh4ITYHc4&feature=related

Some preseason footage here also.

YouTube took it down. :|

[mraynrand]

1. There is an ongoing story that some on the coaching staff thought he completely failed to show leadership in the Giants game. A trip to the Super Bowl was on the line, and some felt Favre no longer had the passion to win that game at all costs. Some thought he was simply going through the motions in the second half, waiting for the game to get over. I have read and heard that some were lobbying for TT to encourage Favre to retire because of it.

I don't want to argue this point with you, because I got a sense of this too. I thought Favre could have fired up the troops, and could have played far better down the stretch. But where does this come from, on the team side? Can you tell me who are the 'Some' in your post (other than McCarthy and TT?). Position coach? Players? If you have examples or quotes available without too much effort, I'd like to read them.


I was so angry about the loss, I didn't watch the Superbowl until it was replayed yesterday on NFLN. The Giants were playing some great defense at the end of last year. You have to realize that, had the Giants not won, NE would have easily been considered by many to be the greatest team ever in the history of the NFL. That team was beaten by the Giants, the same Giants team that barely beat the Packers....

[BallHawk]

Bryant Gumbel's commentary is always worse than you think it's going to be. You think "Ah, he can't be that bad....it's just a false perception put out by fans."

And then you listen to him and immediately reach for the mute button.

EDIT: Originally put Greg. :oops:

[boiga]

But that's the whole reason why I just don't understand why the Packers want to push Favre out the door.


I think fans all wonder that. It's not something I intend to argue about, because I don't have any personal knowledge about it, but from what I can piece together it stems from the following:

1. There is an ongoing story that some on the coaching staff thought he completely failed to show leadership in the Giants game. A trip to the Super Bowl was on the line, and some felt Favre no longer had the passion to win that game at all costs. Some thought he was simply going through the motions in the second half, waiting for the game to get over. I have read and heard that some were lobbying for TT to encourage Favre to retire because of it.

2. Favre has had a lot of poor playoff performances, and some have no confidence that in a big playoff game he won't succumb to his playground tendencies and make critical errors that are hard to overcome. They aren't confident that he will string 3 or 4 games together without a bad one in a playoff run.

3. He has lost more off his "fastball" than has been let on, and since he has always been one to try to zip passes into tight coverage, he will have problems. They were able to control him last year, so he threw fewer high risk passes, but Favre was not happy doing it, and they were not confident they could control him again.

4. I heard from what I believe was a credible source that MM was absolutely fed up with Favre after his flip-flopping in late March/April; and he refused to waste more time on dealing with Favre. That's why he sent Campen down to talk to Favre.

5. They really do have the utmost confidence in Rodgers, and while he may not make the great plays Favre has in the past, he will make very few dumb mistakes. He has bought in completely to what MM wants to do in the passing game, and Favre really didn't.


Again, these are not my views, just some things I have pieced together over the last few weeks that may indicate why the Packers are doing what they are. If you read between the lines, I think it might have been as much or more that the coaching staff thought the Favre days should end than that TT did. TT is taking the heat, but the coaches were ready to go with Rodgers over Favre.Good post Patler.

One other thing I would like to add is that the coaches are well aware that Brett's talent level is on the decline while Rodgers has the learning curve working for him, and thus should improve greatly over the course of this season and the next.

So, the question to the coaching staff may not be who is the better QB during the month of july, but who they expect to be the better QB this coming December. Looked at from that angle, Rodgers can be considered a safer bet if you have eyes on the post season.

[mraynrand]

I also never have gotten why all the posters believe TT's got an ego.


TT has a way of doing things and a leadership style that he knows works. Great leaders all have confidence in the style and substance of their methodology - and this typically inspires confidence in their followers and organization. From the distance of a fan, it can look like an 'ego.' If he really has a fat head, the people who will know will be the folks who have to work with him, and they will grumble. I suspect that if he had an EGO, we'd know about it. I give as an example what happened with Jones, and how Harlan had to pitch him and restart with Murphy.

[channtheman]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WEAh4ITYHc4&feature=related

Some preseason footage here also.

YouTube took it down. :|

I watched it last night and I don't know what would have been in the video to warrant it being taken down. Youtube seems a lot more like youcanpostwhatwewantyoutoposttube.com

[MOBB DEEP]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

texan, i would like some clarity here. y are the media guys a-holes? is there 1 in particular u feel that way about or do they exist in a vacuum. the questioning is just their job and without them where would we be?

his mind aint that weak that the media has that much influence i would thnk after nearly two decades

i DEF aggree though that he prob doesnt feel that strongly either way; thus the elusiveness for so long and ease with which he's stayed out of camp/not sent in that frickn letter that has been "signed" LOL

[Patler]

Thanks Patler for the insight. Most of that is news to me but seems to reaffirm my feeling that it's not really TT that's the barrier but that it's McCarthy (or in this case most of the staff) that wants to move forward with Rodgers.

I also never have gotten why all the posters believe TT's got an ego. Here's a former player that each year had to scrap for a roster spot (what ego is there in that), doesn't seek the lime light (again suggests it's not an ego thing) and IMO is just steadfast in how he's learned/beleived a GM should do things.


I'm not sure I have any insight to offer, but I have tried to analyze this situation by asking why it is happening. Then I tend to believe the information that is consistent with or supports what we know is happening.

Favre seemingly had a great year in 2007.
MM & TT are paid to be successful.
Getting to the Super Bowl is always the objective.
When you are close, you push harder, not step back.
It is illogical that both would cut off their nose to spite their face.
Neither has shown himself to be egotistical, in spite of what some fans think about TT.
If the coaches strongly wanted Favre, we would hear about it.
If the coaches strongly wanted Favre, I doubt TT would deny them when Favre is available.

The reason to shun Favre because they spent all off season tailoring the offense to Rodgers has some small validity, but not much. It is simple tweaking. They had two months to correct it before the season started.

Rodgers feelings are meaningless to MM and TT. It's a cut throat business, they can't worry about hurting a player's feelings.

Worrying about Rodgers re-signing in two years just is not a concern of theirs right now, nor should it be. A lot can happen in two years to help or hurt his re-signing.

The only thing that makes sense is that the coaches and TT have reached the conclusion that Favre is no longer able to get them a Super Bowl win, so they are willing to try another QB. My earlier list is the information I have heard and read that supports that conclusion.

[bobblehead]

2. Favre has had a lot of poor playoff performances, and some have no confidence that in a big playoff game he won't succumb to his playground tendencies and make critical errors that are hard to overcome. They aren't confident that he will string 3 or 4 games together without a bad one in a playoff run.


5. They really do have the utmost confidence in Rodgers, and while he may not make the great plays Favre has in the past, he will make very few dumb mistakes. He has bought in completely to what MM wants to do in the passing game, and Favre really didn't.
.

these are the big ones in my opinion patler. I can't begin to point out how often favre would throw a bonehead pick in a tight game and I always made a point to watch MM as favre wouild walk by him. He is like holmgren in that he truly abhors turnovers. He realizes rodgers won't win a game like the OT in denver the way favre did, but he won't throw the pick right before the half against KC or put it in Urlachers breadbasket inside our own 10 either. He views it as a wash and figures rodgers listens and gives less headaches for what will be a net push in overall performance.

[MOBB DEEP]

Greg Gumbel's commentary is always worse than you think it's going to be. You think "Ah, he can't be that bad....it's just a false perception put out by fans."

And then you listen to him and immediately reach for the mute button.

RITE!! every time

[Patler]

1. There is an ongoing story that some on the coaching staff thought he completely failed to show leadership in the Giants game. A trip to the Super Bowl was on the line, and some felt Favre no longer had the passion to win that game at all costs. Some thought he was simply going through the motions in the second half, waiting for the game to get over. I have read and heard that some were lobbying for TT to encourage Favre to retire because of it.

I don't want to argue this point with you, because I got a sense of this too. I thought Favre could have fired up the troops, and could have played far better down the stretch. But where does this come from, on the team side? Can you tell me who are the 'Some' in your post (other than McCarthy and TT?). Position coach? Players? If you have examples or quotes available without too much effort, I'd like to read them.
.

I don't know which coaches were the "some" in my comment. I read it in an article, and also heard it in a radio broadcast. I'll look for the article.

[Cleft Crusty]

The only thing that makes sense is that the coaches and TT have reached the conclusion that Favre is no longer able to get them a Super Bowl win, so they are willing to try another QB. My earlier list is the information I have heard and read that supports that conclusion.

I argued the same thing, for overlapping reasons, right after the loss at Dallas. I incorrectly assumed the Packers would be returning to Dallas for the NFC Championship game, and argued that by starting Rodgers right away, the Packers could have him ready for the playoffs, and for a chance to win in Dallas, a place where Favre will never win. We'll never know if that would have worked, but it will be interesting to see how Rodgers stacks up compared the the 'out of favor' waffling Favre. Multiple teams in the NFL have been without a decent starting QB for decades or more, particularly the Lions and the Bears, so you have to be careful what you wish for...

[Patler]

Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.

I have no idea what was meant as the "reasons" but it was an interesting comment, and an interesting point that was made. Of course it was also said by "The Big Unit" on WTMJ, and I know many on here disbelieve most of what he says.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.

I have no idea what was meant as the "reasons" but it was an interesting comment, and an interesting point that was made. Of course it was also said by "The Big Unit" on WTMJ, and I know many on here disbelieve most of what he says.

Its a point I've been making. Thank you, thank you, hold your applause

[Patler]

The only thing that makes sense is that the coaches and TT have reached the conclusion that Favre is no longer able to get them a Super Bowl win, so they are willing to try another QB. My earlier list is the information I have heard and read that supports that conclusion.

I argued the same thing, for overlapping reasons, right after the loss at Dallas. I incorrectly assumed the Packers would be returning to Dallas for the NFC Championship game, and argued that by starting Rodgers right away, the Packers could have him ready for the playoffs, and for a chance to win in Dallas, a place where Favre will never win. We'll never know if that would have worked, but it will be interesting to see how Rodgers stacks up compared the the 'out of favor' waffling Favre. Multiple teams in the NFL have been without a decent starting QB for decades or more, particularly the Lions and the Bears, so you have to be careful what you wish for...

I think the point is that when you are convinced what you have won't get you there (a Super Bowl win), there is no reason not to try something else. If it doesn't work out you are no worse off, because what you had wasn't good enough anyway.

To some extent, sticking with Favre at 39 is just putting off the inevitable for a year or two anyway. His performance will decline, and his indecision can be grating on the team. A clean, quick break may be painful for a while but in the long run is the quickest entry into a new era.

[mraynrand]

To some extent, sticking with Favre at 39 is just putting off the inevitable for a year or two anyway. His performance will decline, and his indecision can be grating on the team. A clean, quick break may be painful for a while but in the long run is the quickest entry into a new era.

At 39, you have to consider the fragility and the decline of a fossil of a QB, with the exception that it is Favre, and you have to consider his intangibles. But if you make the clean break, then the new era is upon you. For all the reasons in your earlier post, I accept that the Packers have moved on, based on reasonable criteria. I will repeat that the Packer leadership seems OK with moving on and their confidence is justifiable given the fact that McCarthy has a great track record of improving the play of QBs, including young QBs, rookie QBs, and even old QBs who have developed bad habits (i.e. FAVRE). When you argue that the quick break may be painful for a while, I look at that like last year - where the coaches leaned on Favre while the offense matured around him. This year, they will lean on the rest of the offense (and the defense) as Rodgers (hopefully) matures. At the end of the discussion, at least the way they are dealing with the transition from Favre appears to be consistent with their overall philosophy regarding players. I assume that if they thought Favre gave them a better chance to win (considering ALL factors, including team chemistry, the lockerrom, special preferences, etc.), they would usher him back in - after all, they made an room for Robinson and all his baggage. So I have to conclude that they see Favre as more of a headache than an advantage. This decision will define Thompson's career and likely even McCarthy's career.

[The Leaper]

these are the big ones in my opinion patler. I can't begin to point out how often favre would throw a bonehead pick in a tight game and I always made a point to watch MM as favre wouild walk by him. He is like holmgren in that he truly abhors turnovers. He realizes rodgers won't win a game like the OT in denver the way favre did, but he won't throw the pick right before the half against KC or put it in Urlachers breadbasket inside our own 10 either. He views it as a wash and figures rodgers listens and gives less headaches for what will be a net push in overall performance.

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

So what if Favre threw a pick there? If it wasn't for him in that game, we'd be lucky to have 6 points on the board. That is what too many "but Favre makes too many bonehead throws" people fail to account for...that Favre typically makes up for those throws with all the great ones that you don't remember after a tough loss.

Show me a "manager" QB that wins titles, and I'll show you a team with a dominant defense and running game. We don't have either a dominant defense or a dominant run game right now...so Rodgers the "manager" ain't going to win dick.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

What? What was so special about throwing a ball about 27 yards to a wide open receiver? I love Favre, but this is a silly statement. Maybe you should watch the play again. It's on NFL.com.

[boiga]

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game. How do you know? Obviously, if the Coaches are calling Rodgers number over Favre they think that he can make the game winning pass, hold up to offense etc. We, as fans, can't make a knowledgeable decision one way or another, but the people who would know best have faith in the guy.

Show me a "manager" QB that wins titles, and I'll show you a team with a dominant defense and running game. We don't have either a dominant defense or a dominant run game right now...so Rodgers the "manager" ain't going to win dick.Tom Brady. Had an okay defense and minimal running game, took very few risks, and managed his team into 16-0.

[MOBB DEEP]

[quote="Patler"]Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.



so just remain clandestine so folk just engage in more conjecture and speculation? i get the integrity aspect but some things you said in your EXCELLENT and informative posts we fans should be hearing at least on a small scale.

who's to say that this isnt the product of more spinning anyway? i mean if MM TT felt brett couldnt/cant deliver any longer, y go down to miss? their perception has WAFFLED that much since jan to march to now? hmmmm....


GET WOLF...........

[Gunakor]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

texan, i would like some clarity here. y are the media guys a-holes? is there 1 in particular u feel that way about or do they exist in a vacuum. the questioning is just their job and without them where would we be?

his mind aint that weak that the media has that much influence i would thnk after nearly two decades

i DEF aggree though that he prob doesnt feel that strongly either way; thus the elusiveness for so long and ease with which he's stayed out of camp/not sent in that frickn letter that has been "signed" LOL


It would help if the media stopped asking the same fucking question over and over and over again. I have no problem with media asking questions. But when they get an answer then put it in print and DON'T ASK IT AGAIN. They have seemed to have a problem accepting answers for several years now re: Brett Favre. They feel the need to ask about his retirement 100 times per offseason. THAT is what is wrong with the media.

[MOBB DEEP]

[quote=The Leaper]I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game. How do you know? Obviously, if the Coaches are calling Rodgers number over Favre they think that he can make the game winning pass, hold up to offense etc. We, as fans, can't make a knowledgeable decision one way or another, but the people who would know best have faith in the guy.



BUT ACCORDING to patlers sources/posts its deeper than merely thinkn that arod is as skilled as #4

[boiga]

BUT ACCORDING to patlers sources/posts its deeper than merely thinkn that arod is as skilled as #4He doesn't have to be as skilled as #4, he just has to be skilled. If he can get our receivers the ball, they can carry this team.

Arguing the what if's of each game is pointless. Sure Rodgers might have crumbled in the cold, but he also might have used a couple more short dump off passes instead of trying to force it to Driver in double coverage. Jennings and Jones can take a short pass to the house so we might have won that game, or not. We'll never know and it's pointless trying to rehash it.

Edit: Is anyone else getting server error problems?

[MOBB DEEP]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

texan, i would like some clarity here. y are the media guys a-holes? is there 1 in particular u feel that way about or do they exist in a vacuum. the questioning is just their job and without them where would we be?

his mind aint that weak that the media has that much influence i would thnk after nearly two decades

i DEF aggree though that he prob doesnt feel that strongly either way; thus the elusiveness for so long and ease with which he's stayed out of camp/not sent in that frickn letter that has been "signed" LOL


It would help if the media stopped asking the same fucking question over and over and over again. I have no problem with media asking questions. But when they get an answer then put it in print and DON'T ASK IT AGAIN. They have seemed to have a problem accepting answers for several years now re: Brett Favre. They feel the need to ask about his retirement 100 times per offseason. THAT is what is wrong with the media.



YEA, but the media does that with EVRYTHING (not just #4), but for some reason it seems that some posters here (along with stephen a. smith) get more frustrated when it comes to #4. INFORMATION AGE so just turn channel, etc. like i posted on another thread, ther's a reason for the love fest/preoccupation with #4. dont hate congradulate (ok, thats corny)

a lil off topic but i actually i feel that people get turned off towards favre b/c of all the coverage he gets (like its his fault) and are aAT LEAST subconsciously enjoying seeing him "exposed" as some sorta villain. being a psychologist i realize that this speaks to a myriad of underlying insecurities inherent in a multitude of individuals in our society

[boiga]

I don't think the amount of coverage he is getting is his fault, but I do blame brett for trying to make bash Ted in the media and whining through a powderpuff interview with Greta.

I also blame him for giving one sided exposes to mortenson and PK in which he blabs about private conversations in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.

The coverage isn't his fault but how he has tried to manipulate it is.

[Gunakor]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

texan, i would like some clarity here. y are the media guys a-holes? is there 1 in particular u feel that way about or do they exist in a vacuum. the questioning is just their job and without them where would we be?

his mind aint that weak that the media has that much influence i would thnk after nearly two decades

i DEF aggree though that he prob doesnt feel that strongly either way; thus the elusiveness for so long and ease with which he's stayed out of camp/not sent in that frickn letter that has been "signed" LOL


It would help if the media stopped asking the same fucking question over and over and over again. I have no problem with media asking questions. But when they get an answer then put it in print and DON'T ASK IT AGAIN. They have seemed to have a problem accepting answers for several years now re: Brett Favre. They feel the need to ask about his retirement 100 times per offseason. THAT is what is wrong with the media.



YEA, but the media does that with EVRYTHING (not just #4), but for some reason it seems that some posters here (along with stephen a. smith) get more frustrated when it comes to #4. INFORMATION AGE so just turn channel, etc. like i posted on another thread, ther's a reason for the love fest/preoccupation with #4. dont hate congradulate (ok, thats corny)

a lil off topic but i actually i feel that people get turned off towards favre b/c of all the coverage he gets (like its his fault) and are aAT LEAST subconsciously enjoying seeing him "exposed" as some sorta villain. being a psychologist i realize that this speaks to a myriad of underlying insecurities inherent in a multitude of individuals in our society


The media does do that with everything. That's my whole point. That's why media are assholes. All of em, regardless of the situation, regardless who the story is about, regardless who the reporter is. They are ALL assholes because NONE of them can ever just ask a question, print the answer, and be done with it. There is more frustration over #4 because it's been going on for several years now. Nothing about the story changed until Favre announced his retirement this year, yet up until this year the media kept hassling him about it as if something changed every single day. FFS, I'm not saying they can't do thier jobs, just that they shouldn't OVERDO thier jobs.

[Patler]

[quote=Patler]Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.



so just remain clandestine so folk just engage in more conjecture and speculation? i get the integrity aspect but some things you said in your EXCELLENT and informative posts we fans should be hearing at least on a small scale.

who's to say that this isnt the product of more spinning anyway? i mean if MM TT felt brett couldnt/cant deliver any longer, y go down to miss? their perception has WAFFLED that much since jan to march to now? hmmmm....


GET WOLF...........

Are you accusing me of being clandestine? I told you where the remark was made, Bill Michaels ("The Big Unit") on WTMJ. It was on his talk show last week (Thursday or Friday, I believe.)

Again, interesting from the standpoint that it is true, none of the primary Packer beat writers are backing Favre. Why?

Maybe the "reasons" Michaels refers to are the ones I listed in my first post. So we HAVE heard some of them, at least on the small scale you questioned.

[MOBB DEEP]

I don't think the amount of coverage he is getting is his fault, but I do blame brett for trying to make bash Ted in the media and whining through a powderpuff interview with Greta.

I also blame him for giving one sided exposes to mortenson and PK in which he blabs about private conversations in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.

The coverage isn't his fault but how he has tried to manipulate it is.

yeah, the private convo thing is jacked up. but lets not forget both sides have tried to save face in the only way they feel they can. i guess b/c he's bn a media darling #4 felt thas the avenue he HAD to take. knda backfired but i still thnk hes been mostly honest.

dam! y didnt he just keep with the plan of announcing his comeback in march?

btw, im still confused about cell phone nonsense. was it a blatant lie to smear?

[MOBB DEEP]

[quote=Patler]Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.



so just remain clandestine so folk just engage in more conjecture and speculation? i get the integrity aspect but some things you said in your EXCELLENT and informative posts we fans should be hearing at least on a small scale.

who's to say that this isnt the product of more spinning anyway? i mean if MM TT felt brett couldnt/cant deliver any longer, y go down to miss? their perception has WAFFLED that much since jan to march to now? hmmmm....


GET WOLF...........

Are you accusing me of being clandestine? I told you where the remark was made, Bill Michaels ("The Big Unit") on WTMJ. It was on his talk show last week (Thursday or Friday, I believe.)

Again, interesting from the standpoint that it is true, none of the primary Packer beat writers are backing Favre. Why?

Maybe the "reasons" Michaels refers to are the ones I listed in my first post. So we HAVE heard some of them, at least on the small scale you questioned.


NO, not u Pat. im talkn bout the people in the know holding on to "the real story" like its read from a scroll in the Lost Ark of the Covenant

and i dont know y the beat writers arent backing favre. but for one they should b objective anyway and present only the facts ma'am. cant they share the info with their brethren in the national media in some "legit" manner?

[boiga]

btw, im still confused about cell phone nonsense. was it a blatant lie to smear? Naah, it was just a rumor that Florio started spreading around because he heard that the Packers had Brett's phone records. There was a bit of an echo chamber and the story grew despite the fact that the Packers let it be known the next day that they don't give out cell phones. Florio didn't believe them when they denied it because the free cell phones would have been a salary cap violation, so the story kept growing.

Thompson never had anything to do with it, until Brett complained on sunday night that the story made him out as an idiot, and claimed it was therefore Ted's fault for not quashing the rumor more firmly.

[pack4to84]

Sometime teams find a flaw in a QB then attack it. Favre is been in the league so long teams have found that flaw and are attacking. Remember when teams figured that Drew Bledsoe had a flaw in his throwing motion when he saw the pass rush coming at him. He dropped his shoulder when he threw. The pass rusher didn't need to hit him but to be seen by him to force this. When he dropped his shoulder he threw inaccurate. His passes would flutter.

Last year teams figured out Rex Grossman he was a below average QB in the pocket on straight drop backs. He was excellent QB off play action. Over the last 2 season he has thrown 27 TD's. 23 of those came off play action plays. So when last year teams saw this watching films from there Super Bowl run, and notice this. Then they told there safeties to take first step back on any play to prevent them from getting sucked in. Rex struggles all season because he is average at best. His one trick pony has been found out.

[Patler]

Not all have withheld the information.
Some excerpts from Bob McGinn (link to full article below)



"...Favre, at one time the ultimate team guy, has become a me guy whose self-serving words and actions are no longer conducive to sustaining a winning organization."

"As effective as he was on the field in 2007, the 38-year-old Favre had become almost reclusive off it. Rodgers, 24, had become the more vibrant personality who impressed teammates by doing almost all of the right things."

"Although this standoff has been painted as Thompson vs. Favre, McCarthy's role shouldn't be underestimated. The Packers, almost from top to bottom, reached the decision that they didn't want Favre back as their starter only after McCarthy put his imprimatur on Rodgers. Thompson would be a fool not to defer to McCarthy on this one because coaching quarterbacks is McCarthy's area of expertise."

"As for Favre, the Packers' decision-makers never could get over his horrible second-half performance against the Giants with a Super Bowl berth at their fingertips. The Dallas and Chicago games also left indelible black marks against Favre, whose production down the stretch faded in each of the last three seasons. Not to mention that many in the organization know full well that he hasn't taken Green Bay to the Super Bowl in a decade."

"...the Packers seem to think that Rodgers at least has a chance to function in the brutal cold of Lambeau Field in January. Conversely, they think Favre has none."

"Strip away the emotionalism attached to all things Favre and the Packers' decision makes sense all the way."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=774773

[MOBB DEEP]

Some excerpts from Bob McGinn (link to full article below)




"...Favre, at one time the ultimate team guy, has become a me guy whose self-serving words and actions are no longer conducive to sustaining a winning organization."

"As effective as he was on the field in 2007, the 38-year-old Favre had become almost reclusive off it. Rodgers, 24, had become the more vibrant personality who impressed teammates by doing almost all of the right things."

"Although this standoff has been painted as Thompson vs. Favre, McCarthy's role shouldn't be underestimated. The Packers, almost from top to bottom, reached the decision that they didn't want Favre back as their starter only after McCarthy put his imprimatur on Rodgers. Thompson would be a fool not to defer to McCarthy on this one because coaching quarterbacks is McCarthy's area of expertise."

"As for Favre, the Packers' decision-makers never could get over his horrible second-half performance against the Giants with a Super Bowl berth at their fingertips. The Dallas and Chicago games also left indelible black marks against Favre, whose production down the stretch faded in each of the last three seasons. Not to mention that many in the organization know full well that he hasn't taken Green Bay to the Super Bowl in a decade."

"...the Packers seem to think that Rodgers at least has a chance to function in the brutal cold of Lambeau Field in January. Conversely, they think Favre has none."

"Strip away the emotionalism attached to all things Favre and the Packers' decision makes sense all the way."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=774773



WOW!!! that excerpt is extremely loaded....i gota decipher and digest this b4 commenting

in the meanwhile Patler what's your OPINION as to why they were welcoming him back in march in spite of these "alleged" thoughts ans feelings?

[Patler]

in the meanwhile Patler what's your OPINION as to why they were welcoming him back in march in spite of these "alleged" thoughts ans feelings?

First, I don't think it was an automatic or easy decision for them. It seems like it took them a couple days to agree to it after Favre asked. I suspect some factors in their thinking included:

His retirement was still very "fresh".
He is, after all, Brett Favre. How do you turn him away when 3 weeks earlier you would have accepted him?
They would use 2008 as a transition year, looking for reasons to get Rodgers into games.
They may have been less sure about Rodgers then than they were after all the off season work was done.
Psychologically, the team had not yet made the transition to Rodgers.

Also, some of their concerns about Favre may have increased as a result of him not participating in anything, then coming in and expecting to play.

[mraynrand]

This thread has not cheered me up.


Patler, did you notice that the McGinn column had no specific quotes from coaches or players (at least the part you posted).

I guess I was looking for specific coaches and players to confirm your theory that Favre's demeanor in the cold against the NYG and in playoff games in general had weakened confidence in Favre's ability to lead the team to a superbowl. Perhaps Brady's struggles in the Superbowl against the same NYG defense should be a mitigating factor?

[Patler]

I guess I was looking for specific coaches and players to confirm your theory that Favre's demeanor in the cold against the NYG and in playoff games in general had weakened confidence in Favre's ability to lead the team to a superbowl. Perhaps Brady's struggles in the Superbowl against the same NYG defense should be a mitigating factor?

I agree.

This was not really my theory. As I said, I just posted information I found that supports the situation that we know exists. We know they don't want him back. The question was, Why? I have no explanation, because I have no first hand information. This is the only information I found that might explain it, but it is certainly not corroborated at all.

As I said in my original post, its not something I will argue for, because I don't know how much is fact and how much is conjecture. Just something to discuss.

If you accept it as true, it explains the current situation quite well.
If you don't accept it, you have to find other things that explain the current situation, and quite frankly, I have none that make any sense.

[Rastak]

It did sound like a "Patler theory". You posted the information as has been released and came to a conclusion. I think you are most likely right. If they really wanted to they could have delcared an open competition but stated Rogers starts on top of the depth chart but it would be re-evaluated based on preseason play like all positions.

They definately don't want his ass back and there has to be more of a reason than our feelings are hurt. It's a business or they have simply released him.

[channtheman]

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

So what if Favre threw a pick there? If it wasn't for him in that game, we'd be lucky to have 6 points on the board. That is what too many "but Favre makes too many bonehead throws" people fail to account for...that Favre typically makes up for those throws with all the great ones that you don't remember after a tough loss.

Show me a "manager" QB that wins titles, and I'll show you a team with a dominant defense and running game. We don't have either a dominant defense or a dominant run game right now...so Rodgers the "manager" ain't going to win dick.

Oh yes he can and yes he did! Rodgers carried this team like no tomorrow. If it weren't for our crappy receivers, we look even better all year.