No open competition...

[Partial]

This is such bullshit. That is just the cats ass right there. What is Brian Brohm was the better player by leaps and bounds...?!?

Bullshit. That is a horrible way to run an organization. Why would BB even try, knowing he has zero shot at being a starter...

Man, this organization has gone down the SHITTER the past couple of weeks.

[Partial]

Settle it with a QB competition and man-off. Favre wins both hands down.

[Bretsky]

Did TT or MM ever note or imply there could be a fair competition ?

I ask this sincerely because I'm mixed up with all of the information different sources have put out.

TT is media sharp; I don't think he ever specifically said Favre would be able to come in and compete and he didn't say Favre could only be the backup either.

[Partial]

MM said that Rodgers is the starter and their wouldn't be a competition.

[Harlan Huckleby]

MM said that Rodgers is the starter and their wouldn't be a competition.

I'm OK with it, they have reasons for preferring Rodgers that won't be demonstrated by a preseason competition.

Of course there always is a "competition" at every position in that the backup moves up if the starter disappoints badly.

[Merlin]

I think as a head coach you go into TC with who you want to be your starter known because you want to avoid a QB controversy. The Packers have gone over board with this and it is sickening. I have my theories as to why they have stuck to their guns. As far as competition goes, Aaron Rodgers will never, I repeat NEVER have any competition for any position he holds with the Packers as long as Ted Thompson is the GM. I am excited to see Brohm play but I fear he has a glass jaw. Flynn I don't know a lot about but I am willing to bet that both of them will be more ready to play after 1 year with the Packers then Rodgers was after 3. Why? Competition.

[Lurker64]

The reason there's no open competition between Rodgers and Brohm is so they can give Rodgers the most reps during training camp. Likely Rodgers with a full camp and offseason of reps with the #1 guys will be better prepared to play this season than whoever would win the open competition between Brohm and Rodgers. This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

The reason there's not going to be an open competition between Favre and Rodgers is similar.

[LEWCWA]

blah, blah,blah--this whole thing is bs. I can't believe some of you fuckers around here!

[mmmdk]

All the bickering is kinda history as...

Favre is now reinstated.

Favre cannot / will not be released.

It's business; it's beyond me though that Favre can't fathom this.

Favre is hard to trade and I don't blame the rest of the NFL.

Favre can still re-retire.

Favre is welcome as the clear cut back up QB in GB.

Favre is still a HUGE asset; take notes rest of NFL.

Favre is welcomed by all fans and Packers too - no doubt about that.

Favre has a unique chance to play for the Packers again; should injury happen to Rodgers or Rodgers plays really, really, really poorly over a lengthy period.

Can Favre's ego handle the road ahead and stay true to the Packers?

[Bretsky]

All the bickering is kinda history as...

Favre is now reinstated.

Favre cannot / will not be released.

It's business; it's beyond me though that Favre can't fathom this.

Favre is hard to trade and I don't blame the rest of the NFL.

Favre can still re-retire.

Favre is welcome as the clear cut back up QB in GB.

Favre is still a HUGE asset; take notes rest of NFL.

Favre is welcomed by all fans and Packers too - no doubt about that.

Favre has a unique chance to play for the Packers again; should injury happen to Rodgers or Rodgers plays really, really, really poorly over a lengthy period.

Can Favre's ego handle the road ahead and stay true to the Packers?


He should ask for a trade or release; as a poster noted

The Packers are only looking out for GB and Favre is looking out for Favre

If he thinks he's their best QB and he is not given a chance in an open competition he should ask for a trade.

[The Leaper]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

[packinpatland]

All the bickering is kinda history as...

Favre is now reinstated.

Favre cannot / will not be released.

It's business; it's beyond me though that Favre can't fathom this.

Favre is hard to trade and I don't blame the rest of the NFL.

Favre can still re-retire.

Favre is welcome as the clear cut back up QB in GB.

Favre is still a HUGE asset; take notes rest of NFL.

Favre is welcomed by all fans and Packers too - no doubt about that.

Favre has a unique chance to play for the Packers again; should injury happen to Rodgers or Rodgers plays really, really, really poorly over a lengthy period.

Can Favre's ego handle the road ahead and stay true to the Packers?


He should ask for a trade or release; as a poster noted

The Packers are only looking out for GB and Favre is looking out for Favre

If he thinks he's their best QB and he is not given a chance in an open competition he should ask for a trade.


"He should ask for a trade or release".............he's done that. The answer has been no.
Open competition..........he asked for............The answer was no.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Bretsky]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Ditto

While I don't agree, if the Packer Brass figures the long term interest are best served by moving forward I agree with that.

But I don't buy it's about this season. If it was at minimum they'd open it up.

[Patler]

He should ask for a trade or release; as a poster noted

The Packers are only looking out for GB and Favre is looking out for Favre

If he thinks he's their best QB and he is not given a chance in an open competition he should ask for a trade.

Haven't there been other players who have felt the same way over the years? This isn't the first time a veteran player who thinks he deserves to start has been replaced by a much younger player. It only seems different because of Favre's stature. But, in the end, Favre's contract is a team asset just like the contract of every other NFL player, and the Packers should handle it as such.

[Chevelle2]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Maybe because every time Rodgers has gotten the chance, he has outplayed Favre.

[Zool]

Settle it with a QB competition and man-off. Favre wins both hands down.

I'm wasnt exactly sure what a man-off was, so I hit up the urban dictionary, and yeah....its exactly what I thought it was.

1. man off

To masturbate, or to otherwise do something private and/or embarrassing.
Anthony: Steve, your a douche, why don't you just go man off in the corner.


P, you are turning into the forum douchebag. The one even people who agree with you skip over his posts. Gratz.

[Lurker64]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

I already posted this in another thread, but I believe it's the answer I'd give here so I'll just c/p myself.

In the interest of complete honesty, I believe that in order for the Packers to win another Superbowl, we will have to have a QB that plays well in at least most of the following:

1) The Snow.
2) The Cold.
3) The Wind.
4) Dallas.

Last year, Favre saw all four conditions, played well in one of them (snow) and very poorly in the other three, so he's batting .250. Rodgers only got to see one of those conditions (Dallas), but be played very well.

So I'm not personally convinced that Favre is the best QB for the Packers in 2008. He probably would be the QB that wins the most games in September through November, but I'm not sure I trust him in the playoffs, in bad weather, or on the road in big games.

If I had seen Favre play well in extreme conditions or big games last year, I would be much more excited about having him back. As it stands, I'm worried that if Favre were annointed the starter we could win 11-12 games, but if we have to go to Dallas or if we have a home playoff game in adverse conditions, he just can't get us over the hump.

[mmmdk]

All the bickering is kinda history as...

Favre is now reinstated.

Favre cannot / will not be released.

It's business; it's beyond me though that Favre can't fathom this.

Favre is hard to trade and I don't blame the rest of the NFL.

Favre can still re-retire.

Favre is welcome as the clear cut back up QB in GB.

Favre is still a HUGE asset; take notes rest of NFL.

Favre is welcomed by all fans and Packers too - no doubt about that.

Favre has a unique chance to play for the Packers again; should injury happen to Rodgers or Rodgers plays really, really, really poorly over a lengthy period.

Can Favre's ego handle the road ahead and stay true to the Packers?


He should ask for a trade or release; as a poster noted

The Packers are only looking out for GB and Favre is looking out for Favre

If he thinks he's their best QB and he is not given a chance in an open competition he should ask for a trade.

B, Favre cannot be released. Trade or stay as backup. If the latter happens then Favre would have to commit now to be the backup.

[The Leaper]

Haven't there been other players who have felt the same way over the years? This isn't the first time a veteran player who thinks he deserves to start has been replaced by a much younger player.

Patler...

If you can find an NFL player who got MVP votes the prior season that was forced out for a younger player the next...I'll concede your point.

I'm guessing you won't find one.

The notion that Favre deserves to start is a valid one IMO. I'm not saying that means it is right...only that it is valid based on the circumstances, which are one-of-a-kind.

[POLISHHAWK]

I would rather step into an unknown with a new QB than be utterly dissappointed again in the playoffs.

Ya; you heard me! I would rather shake the dice than get into the playoffs and be dissappointed AGAIN!
:x

[The Leaper]

So I'm not personally convinced that Favre is the best QB for the Packers in 2008. He probably would be the QB that wins the most games in September through November, but I'm not sure I trust him in the playoffs, in bad weather, or on the road in big games.

But you have more trust in a FIRST TIME STARTER?

You are nuts.

[packinpatland]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Maybe because every time Rodgers has gotten the chance, he has outplayed Favre.

I was at the Packer/Patriot game 2 years ago.........Rodgers didn't outplay Favre, Rodgers broke his foot.

[texaspackerbacker]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Because Thompson, McCarthy, Murphy, a large share of the players, and probably even most of our posters here KNOW that the team is better off with Rodgers at QB.

"Open Competition" is just another way of saying "QB Controversy". To his extreme credit, McCarthy seems determined not to let that happen in Green Bay.

mmmdk summarized the whole situation very well above.

[The Leaper]

Because Thompson, McCarthy, Murphy, a large share of the players, and probably even most of our posters here KNOW that the team is better off with Rodgers at QB.

Really?

Evidence?

[mission]

Because Thompson, McCarthy, Murphy, a large share of the players, and probably even most of our posters here KNOW that the team is better off with Rodgers at QB.

Really?

Evidence?

Well --

we KNOW this team isn't a super bowl team.

we didnt go to it last year and definitely didnt deserve it even if we had stumbled ass backwards into the super bowl. we had every chance to win that game 10 times and didnt ...

can you argue with the fact rodgers can AT LEAST *not* get us to the super bowl?

by standard logic, we're even there ... at least there's a *chance* that the outcome is different.

either we dont make it to the super bowl (that we know) or we do (that *could* happen)

this might sound stupidly obvious but think about it ... we already know the result of one path.

might as well try the other one and see where that road takes us...

thanks, drive thru.

we're outta fries. :soap:

[Patler]

The notion that Favre deserves to start is a valid one IMO. I'm not saying that means it is right...only that it is valid based on the circumstances, which are one-of-a-kind.

I'm not really arguing that that he doesn't deserve to start. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. That's really not the issue. Coaching staffs make decisions for a lot of reasons, that's just the way it is. The Packers still own Favre's rights, to do with as they please. That's also just the way it is. Eventually, something will happen, a trade, a release, Favre being a backup, Favre being a starter, or Favre re-retiring. With an unexpired contract, the team has the controlling hand, with the player's strength coming mostly from the effect of his compensation on the team and his ability to hold out or retire. For Favre and the Packers, that really comes down to just the compensation, because a holdout or retirement would suit the Packers just fine.

The situation is what it is, and exceptions should not be made just because it involves Favre. That's why I think the commissioner getting involved is ridiculous. If the commissioner starts exerting influence on teams as to who should or shouldn't start, who should or shouldn't be traded or released, or when a trade or release should occur, that's a very bad precedent, in my opinion.

[Fritz]

I think Favre has more power than you think, Patler. His continuing presence is a negative for the Packers - a huge negative. Even if Rodgers is hurt and has to sit out for a few weeks, what happens when he comes back?

Favre holds the upper hand, in my mind. He's got the Pack by the short hairs. If they let him back as a backup, the distraction will unravel the team. If they let him compete after moving on with Rodgers, MM loses all credibility.

[The Leaper]

we KNOW this team isn't a super bowl team.

we didnt go to it last year and definitely didnt deserve it even if we had stumbled ass backwards into the super bowl. we had every chance to win that game 10 times and didnt ...

So none of that was because we had an extremely young, inexperienced roster mostly going through a playoff run for the first time?

We didn't go, so we should just scrap the whole thing and start over?

We went into overtime with the eventual SB winner. How can you say there is no chance the Packers could make a SB run in 2008?

[The Leaper]

Favre holds the upper hand, in my mind. He's got the Pack by the short hairs. If they let him back as a backup, the distraction will unravel the team. If they let him compete after moving on with Rodgers, MM loses all credibility.

I somewhat agree. The longer this drags out, the more Favre gains the advantage...especially if Rodgers isn't lights out in preseason.

I wouldn't say Favre holds the upper hand yet...but it could get there within a week or two. The Packers can't just release Favre or trade him for nothing. They'd look foolish. They can't open up the QB spot to competition. They'd look foolish. Even leaving him on the roster without utilizing him at $13M looks foolish, although might be more palatable than releasing him.

As I've pointed out elsewhere...the Packers have painted themselves into a corner with a strategy that they could somehow force Favre to stay in retirement by saying they've "moved on".

It was a poorly thought out strategy IMO...and has left them open for a potential disaster.

[Patler]

Favre holds the upper hand, in my mind. He's got the Pack by the short hairs. If they let him back as a backup, the distraction will unravel the team. If they let him compete after moving on with Rodgers, MM loses all credibility.

I somewhat agree. The longer this drags out, the more Favre gains the advantage...especially if Rodgers isn't lights out in preseason.

I wouldn't say Favre holds the upper hand yet...but it could get there within a week or two.

I don't think the "publicity" "conflict" whatever you want to call it is as much of a concern to the Packers as some think. Sure, they would like to avoid it, but they know it would be only temporary. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Rodgers justifies the confidence in him. If he does, none of this will matter.

[mission]

we KNOW this team isn't a super bowl team.

we didnt go to it last year and definitely didnt deserve it even if we had stumbled ass backwards into the super bowl. we had every chance to win that game 10 times and didnt ...

So none of that was because we had an extremely young, inexperienced roster mostly going through a playoff run for the first time?

We didn't go, so we should just scrap the whole thing and start over?

We went into overtime with the eventual SB winner. How can you say there is no chance the Packers could make a SB run in 2008?

Because this season, with Favre and all this distraction bullshit, is not BUILDING on last season.

Rodgers is a step forward (even if it's two steps back out of the gate) ... but Favre is not going to be *better* this season, it's not like his intense off season training and preparation has him ready to step it up an extra notch this season. Everything went right last season for us to be in that position ... everything, as I shouldnt have to explain, is not going right this season thus far.

If anything, I feel like his gunslinger, anything-goes mentality would be as pronounced this season as its ever been. Just to show everyone up ...

Fuck. It'll be just like those glorious Sherman years. Man, those were awesome.

[The Leaper]

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Rodgers justifies the confidence in him. If he does, none of this will matter.

Yeah, I agree.

However...that's also partly my point. You KNOW Rodgers is going to have hiccups...he's a first time starter in the league. We aren't going to know for sure that Rodgers was worthy of the decision for quite awhile.

If he struggles in the meantime, and Favre is sitting there in camp...it ain't going to be good for Green Bay.

[The Leaper]

Because this season, with Favre and all this distraction bullshit, is not BUILDING on last season.

Neither is going with a first time starter. Just when the rest of your team gains valuable experience, you stick a guy out there in the most important spot who has none.

The situation is mess regardless at this point. I'm not sure any real good can be salvaged from this. In that respect, I can see your point.

[texaspackerbacker]

Because Thompson, McCarthy, Murphy, a large share of the players, and probably even most of our posters here KNOW that the team is better off with Rodgers at QB.

Really?

Evidence?

Well --

we KNOW this team isn't a super bowl team.

we didnt go to it last year and definitely didnt deserve it even if we had stumbled ass backwards into the super bowl. we had every chance to win that game 10 times and didnt ...

can you argue with the fact rodgers can AT LEAST *not* get us to the super bowl?

by standard logic, we're even there ... at least there's a *chance* that the outcome is different.

either we dont make it to the super bowl (that we know) or we do (that *could* happen)

this might sound stupidly obvious but think about it ... we already know the result of one path.

might as well try the other one and see where that road takes us...

thanks, drive thru.

we're outta fries. :soap:

Mission, I don't know you well enough to know if this is just a bunch of sarcasm, or if you really believe all that silly shit. "Stumbling ass backwards" into the Super Bowl? Uh that would be the Giants.

This Packer team is absolutely loaded with talent surrounding Rodgers. He doesn't have to be a superstar. All he has to do is not make a bunch of mistakes and lose games--as the Favre of two years ago did/as the Favre of this year--without the max preparation he did in '07 likely might.

As for "evidence", Thompson and McCarthy are pretty clearly on record saying just that. Several of the players have spoken out--mildly and tactfully, but gotten the point across. And reading the posts (and I think a couple of polls) in here indicates that well over half prefer that Favre be retired or a backup.

And as for Favre "holding the upper hand", no way in hell that is true--assuming the Packers are willing to cough up that $12 million for him to be a backup/insurance policy.

[Patler]

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Rodgers justifies the confidence in him. If he does, none of this will matter.

Yeah, I agree.

However...that's also partly my point. You KNOW Rodgers is going to have hiccups...he's a first time starter in the league. We aren't going to know for sure that Rodgers was worthy of the decision for quite awhile.

If he struggles in the meantime, and Favre is sitting there in camp...it ain't going to be good for Green Bay.

A hiccup or two along the way won't mean much. Favre had those every year, as do most QBs. Rodgers needs to start out well, and have an overall good season. That's all. Of course many fans will remember only the "good Favre" and compare him only to the "bad Rodgers" as long as Favre is still around anywhere. Heck, some still haven't let go of Javon Walker!

[mission]

Because this season, with Favre and all this distraction bullshit, is not BUILDING on last season.

Neither is going with a first time starter. Just when the rest of your team gains valuable experience, you stick a guy out there in the most important spot who has none.

The situation is mess regardless at this point. I'm not sure any real good can be salvaged from this. In that respect, I can see your point.

That's what I'm sayin bruh.

Kind of a lesser of two evils thing.

As adament as Ive been the last couple weeks here, Im not stupid enough to think Rodgers is going to hop out and make us forget about Brett from Day One.

Obviously not. I just kind feel that "ok, brett comes back, we have a decent season" and then what?

Back to this again. At some point, we gotta get the hiccups you described out of the way and I'm not necessarily the biggest thinker that you need a Peyton Manning to win a super bowl.

Just a Dilfer... Brad Johnson... Eli...

Good defense, great receivers, improving line, great special teams ... a quarterback who can throw 6-8 yard passes all day and listens to his coach intently.

I dunno, I'm an armchair just like all of us, but that doesnt sound like such a bad deal (especially to BUILD ON).

We arent "building on" Brett at this point.

[Partial]

Settle it with a QB competition and man-off. Favre wins both hands down.

I'm wasnt exactly sure what a man-off was, so I hit up the urban dictionary, and yeah....its exactly what I thought it was.

1. man off

To masturbate, or to otherwise do something private and/or embarrassing.
Anthony: Steve, your a douche, why don't you just go man off in the corner.


P, you are turning into the forum douchebag. The one even people who agree with you skip over his posts. Gratz.

Whatever man. I had no idea thats what I man off was. I meant manly things like flexing muscles, impressing chicks, drinking beer, hunting deer, chasing bears, etc.


This whole thing is ridiculous. It's a shameful time to be a Packer fan, watching a once great organization bite its thumb at the player who made it what it was.

[boiga]

We arent "building on" Brett at this point.Mission got to the crux of the issue right here.

If Brett comes back, the quality at the qb position will likely be in decline over the course of the season. With Rodgers, we will see improvement, progress, etc. That is why the Coaches think that Rodgers could be better for the team this year than Brett. By week 15, rodgers will still be a young improving quarterback, while Brett simply looked old and worn down at that stage.

[Partial]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

I already posted this in another thread, but I believe it's the answer I'd give here so I'll just c/p myself.

In the interest of complete honesty, I believe that in order for the Packers to win another Superbowl, we will have to have a QB that plays well in at least most of the following:

1) The Snow.
2) The Cold.
3) The Wind.
4) Dallas.

Last year, Favre saw all four conditions, played well in one of them (snow) and very poorly in the other three, so he's batting .250. Rodgers only got to see one of those conditions (Dallas), but be played very well.

So I'm not personally convinced that Favre is the best QB for the Packers in 2008. He probably would be the QB that wins the most games in September through November, but I'm not sure I trust him in the playoffs, in bad weather, or on the road in big games.

If I had seen Favre play well in extreme conditions or big games last year, I would be much more excited about having him back. As it stands, I'm worried that if Favre were annointed the starter we could win 11-12 games, but if we have to go to Dallas or if we have a home playoff game in adverse conditions, he just can't get us over the hump.

Last time I checked A-Rod didn't win in Dallas. Last time I checked Favre had 2 touchdowns and played a near perfect game in the snow of Lambeau.

Last time I checked the "cold" happened to be the coldest game in NFL history. Last time I checked he had the team of destiny reeling, and almost beat them. Didn't that game go into overtime!?!? Seems like it was a nail biter to me, and certainly not a typical "cold" game. We'll never see a game anywhere near that cold again.

Last time I checked it wasn't Favre fumbling punts or having them blocked and returned for Touchdowns. When you're down by 14+ points, you've got to start chucking the rock and trying to make things happen.

You all blame Favre for all these losses. I don't understand why. It's a TEAM game. Favre is the one that drives the engine.

Last time I checked Rodgers hasn't started a game, played well enough in a game to win, or has ever won a game. Favre won 14 more games than Aaron did last year. GMAFB.

Dallas was the most star stacked team in the league last year with half their starters being in the pro-bowl. Unfortunately, we started out badly against a great team on the road. A-Rod had the benefit of them not changing their gameplan to account for his scrambling.

We lost to the best team in the NFL in overtime of the championship game. Horrendous, I know.

Favre also single-handedly lost to the Bears both times!! Not MM for callign bad games. Not RG for not holding onto the rock. Not the punter for scoring points for the Bears!

[Chevelle2]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Maybe because every time Rodgers has gotten the chance, he has outplayed Favre.

I was at the Packer/Patriot game 2 years ago.........Rodgers didn't outplay Favre, Rodgers broke his foot.

Favre didn't finish the game.

[Zool]

This whole thing is ridiculous. It's a shameful time to be a Packer fan, watching a once great organization bite its thumb at the player who made it what it was.

You might be living a little too much for a sports team. Just a thought.

[BallHawk]

Last time I checked A-Rod didn't win in Dallas. Last time I checked Favre had 2 touchdowns and played a near perfect game in the snow of Lambeau.

Last time I checked the "cold" happened to be the coldest game in NFL history. Last time I checked he had the team of destiny reeling, and almost beat them. Didn't that game go into overtime!?!? Seems like it was a nail biter to me, and certainly not a typical "cold" game. We'll never see a game anywhere near that cold again.

Last time I checked it wasn't Favre fumbling punts or having them blocked and returned for Touchdowns. When you're down by 14+ points, you've got to start chucking the rock and trying to make things happen.

You all blame Favre for all these losses. I don't understand why. It's a TEAM game. Favre is the one that drives the engine.

Last time I checked Rodgers hasn't started a game, played well enough in a game to win, or has ever won a game. Favre won 14 more games than Aaron did last year. GMAFB.

Dallas was the most star stacked team in the league last year with half their starters being in the pro-bowl. Unfortunately, we started out badly against a great team on the road. A-Rod had the benefit of them not changing their gameplan to account for his scrambling.

We lost to the best team in the NFL in overtime of the championship game. Horrendous, I know.

Favre also single-handedly lost to the Bears both times!! Not MM for callign bad games. Not RG for not holding onto the rock. Not the punter for scoring points for the Bears!

1. Nobody's saying Favre played bad against Seattle. Don't know what your point is there.

2. Yes, it wasn't Favre's fault on the punts, but we were backed up in our red zone each time. He wasn't moving the ball. That's also down on Grant and the rest of the offense, but when cold weather comes Favre just gets the "anywhere else but here" loook.

3. Rodgers played well enough to beat Dallas. Look at his stats against Dallas and then look at Favre's stats against Seattle (a near perfect game, as you said). Completions are equal, Aaron has more yardage, Favre has two more TDs, although it is worth mentioning that Aaron led the Packers to score on 2 of their first 3 drives. Add in an 18/26 passing performance with 200 yards and you cannot deny that's good enough to win the football game. You can't deny that, Partial, or at least you'd be foolish not to. Our defense lost us that game. And Favre's two early INTs didn't help.

4. And great job of contradicting yourself, P. You said

He's not a dual-threat quarterback by any stretch of the imagination. How did this fallacy come about?

He's average speed

Now, why would it matter if Dallas didn't gameplan for a QB that "Is not a dual-threat and has average speed?"

Make up your mind, P. You're making yourself look foolish.

Game. Set. Match.

[packinpatland]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Maybe because every time Rodgers has gotten the chance, he has outplayed Favre.

I was at the Packer/Patriot game 2 years ago.........Rodgers didn't outplay Favre, Rodgers broke his foot.

Favre didn't finish the game.

Yes, I know that. You made the point that ARod 'outplayed' Favre......
Favre got hurt, Rodgers went in. Packers still lost..........

[mmmdk]

This whole thing is ridiculous. It's a shameful time to be a Packer fan, watching a once great organization bite its thumb at the player who made it what it was.

You might be living a little too much for a sports team. Just a thought.

Green Bay Packers Est. 1921

[BallHawk]

Yes, I know that. You made the point that ARod 'outplayed' Favre......Favre got hurt, Rodgers went in. Packers still lost..........

You think the fact that Favre threw 2 INTs and the defense allowed 37 points was part of the reason we lost?

Aaron did all you could of asked of him. He put us in a position to win the game after Favre crippled our chances of winning. Unfortunately, the defense just couldn't hold up.

[Zool]

This whole thing is ridiculous. It's a shameful time to be a Packer fan, watching a once great organization bite its thumb at the player who made it what it was.

You might be living a little too much for a sports team. Just a thought.

Green Bay Packers Est. 1921

Partial Est. ~1984

[MOBB DEEP]

blah, blah,blah--this whole thing is bs. I can't believe some of you fuckers around here!



unintentionally my first lol this morn

[MadtownPacker]

Unfortunately, the defense just couldn't hold up.Funny, that is one of those "excuses" you say people use for Favre.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Unfortunately, the defense just couldn't hold up.Funny, that is one of those "excuses" you say people use for Favre.

I've made plenty of excuses for Favre, but comparing a defense that gave up 37 points (as the Packers did against Dallas) to a defense that gave up 20 points (as the Packers did in regulation against the Giants) isn't really that fair.

The defense held up enough in the Giants game that the offense had a good chance of winning the game if they could have done their part (21 points isn't a huge number to expect out of the offense). Expecting them to score 38 points is a little different--especially since the game was in the second quarter and the Packers had only scored 7 points to that point (31 points in under 45 minutes at Dallas would have been asking a lot for anybody).

[mission]

Frank Reich coulda done it tho...

You think Frank would QB for us ... ?

[The Leaper]

I've made plenty of excuses for Favre, but comparing a defense that gave up 37 points (as the Packers did against Dallas) to a defense that gave up 20 points (as the Packers did in regulation against the Giants) isn't really that fair.

You have to factor the conditions into the game...you can't compare a pseudo-dome game in Texas to a zero degree chillfest in Green Bay.

IMO, the defense was pathetic in both games. Dallas produced more big plays, while the Giants just simply wore down our defense by racking up 4-5 yards a pop with alarming consistency.

Any defense that allows the opponent to have a 2:1 advantage in time of possession isn't getting it done.

[mission]

Defense was horrible because they were on the field the whole fucking time ...


Again -- I can tell you never played ball. Your leadership comments and shit like the above just ... man... I hate BRETTGATE 08. This is frustrating.

[The Leaper]

Defense was horrible because they were on the field the whole fucking time ...

Well...make a stop and get the hell off the field then. Is it Favre's fault the defense can't get off the field? Someone STOP Burress. Someone STOP the Giants running game.

The defense couldn't do it...and were on the field for forever. That's on THEM.

[cpk1994]

Defense was horrible because they were on the field the whole fucking time ...

Well...make a stop and get the hell off the field then. Is it Favre's fault the defense can't get off the field? Someone STOP Burress. Someone STOP the Giants running game.

The defense couldn't do it...and were on the field for forever. That's on THEM.But you are forgetting that even with all of the defenses problems that the game was TIED 20-20, Packers with the ball and a chance to win Favre chokes with the interception. Thats why Favre getrs the blame for it.

[The Leaper]

But you are forgetting that even with all of the defenses problems that the game was TIED 20-20, Packers with the ball and a chance to win Favre chokes with the interception. Thats why Favre getrs the blame for it.

Yeah, he deserves plenty of blame for that throw.

However, he delivered a great throw that Martin dropped in the 4th quarter...which could have extended a drive and potentially set up a winning score in regulation.

It is a TEAM sport. There are plenty of opportunities for players to make plays during a game. The Giants as a team made far more plays. That is why they won.

Hopefully, the young roster learned a lesson and will step up and make the plays necessary next time to win. Rather than waiting for Favre to make a play, sometimes they need to go out and make something happen on their own.

[Partial]

1. Nobody's saying Favre played bad against Seattle. Don't know what your point is there.

LURKER SAID HE PLAYED BAD IN THE SNOW. FUNNY, THE ONE GAME IN THE SNOW HE WAS LIGHTS OUT.

2. Yes, it wasn't Favre's fault on the punts, but we were backed up in our red zone each time. He wasn't moving the ball. That's also down on Grant and the rest of the offense, but when cold weather comes Favre just gets the "anywhere else but here" loook.

THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN TO BE FROM A DOMINATING DEFENSE (#1 IN PREVIOUS SEASON) GETTING HEALTHY?!? MAYBE THE 3RD COLDEST GAME AND CRAZY WIND TOO... GIMME A BREAK.

3. Rodgers played well enough to beat Dallas. Look at his stats against Dallas and then look at Favre's stats against Seattle (a near perfect game, as you said). Completions are equal, Aaron has more yardage, Favre has two more TDs, although it is worth mentioning that Aaron led the Packers to score on 2 of their first 3 drives. Add in an 18/26 passing performance with 200 yards and you cannot deny that's good enough to win the football game. You can't deny that, Partial, or at least you'd be foolish not to. Our defense lost us that game. And Favre's two early INTs didn't help.

AARON PLAYED DECENT ENOUGH, BUT THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR GAMEPLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS GREATER, ALBEIT NOT GOOD, MOBILITY. THEY KEPT BLITZING THEIR OLBS AND WERE GETTING BURNED WHEN RODGERS STEPPED UP.

4. And great job of contradicting yourself, P. You said

He's not a dual-threat quarterback by any stretch of the imagination. How did this fallacy come about?

He's average speed

Now, why would it matter if Dallas didn't gameplan for a QB that "Is not a dual-threat and has average speed?"

Make up your mind, P. You're making yourself look foolish.

Game. Set. Match.

NO, I NEVER SAID HE WAS SCRAMBLING AROUND MAKING PLAYS. FAVRE IS PRETTY STATIONARY. RODGERS MOVES MORE. THEY KEPT BLITZING AND HAD ZERO CONTAINMENT. RODGERS HAS AVERAGE MOBILITY AT BEST. THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE CAN'T SCRAMBLE AROUND WHEN THERE IS AN OPENING. TEAMS AREN'T GOING TO GAMEPLAN AROUND IT, THOUGH, BUT THEY ALSO WON'T GAMEPLAN TO BLITZ THE WAY THEY DID FOR THE IMMOBILE FAVRE. WITH FAVRE, ITS A NEGATIVE. WITH RODGERS, ITS NOT A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE. IT JUST IS.

Besides, Favre has never played well in Dallas. Should we have moved on in 1995 after a playoff loss in Big D?

[Zool]

ANGRY SNAKE CAPS FTW!

[sharpe1027]

MM said that Rodgers is the starter and their wouldn't be a competition.

I would like to see this statement and the context it was given in.

[BallHawk]

ANGRY SNAKE CAPS FTW!

Did somebody say Snake?

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w85/JoshOMS8/MGS-1.jpg

[MJZiggy]

This whole thing is ridiculous. It's a shameful time to be a Packer fan, watching a once great organization bite its thumb at the player who made it what it was.

I still don't get it. Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the Packers did to Bart Starr?

[packinpatland]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Maybe because every time Rodgers has gotten the chance, he has outplayed Favre.

I was at the Packer/Patriot game 2 years ago.........Rodgers didn't outplay Favre, Rodgers broke his foot.

Favre didn't finish the game.

Yes, I know that. You made the point that ARod 'outplayed' Favre......
Favre got hurt, Rodgers went in. Packers still lost..........

Yup............all Favre's fault......the Defense played flawless. :roll:

[Bretsky]

This whole thing is ridiculous. It's a shameful time to be a Packer fan, watching a once great organization bite its thumb at the player who made it what it was.

I still don't get it. Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the Packers did to Bart Starr?


They canned him as a coach about the time he was starting to figure out what the hell he was doing

[MJZiggy]

To be fair, I don't think trying to shift your weight to throw off of a broken foot is an easy thing to do. Compared to throwing with a broken thumb, I'd think that both are painful and Favre didn't always play so well with that injury. Yes, I recall a good game in there, but in general, he wasn't smashing and funny how a huge deal was made of it but no one remembers Rodgers running all over on a broken foot. I guess because he was the backup, no one made a big deal out of it.

[Chevelle2]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Maybe because every time Rodgers has gotten the chance, he has outplayed Favre.

I was at the Packer/Patriot game 2 years ago.........Rodgers didn't outplay Favre, Rodgers broke his foot.

Favre didn't finish the game.

Yes, I know that. You made the point that ARod 'outplayed' Favre......
Favre got hurt, Rodgers went in. Packers still lost..........

Yup............all Favre's fault......the Defense played flawless. :roll:

0 points. 0.