McGinn: Football Dept Agrees, Favre Can't Win Championship

[pbmax]

McGinn quote, via ESPN The Football Blog:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-3-44/Black-and-Blue-all-over--All-QBs--all-the-time.html


You need a subscription to read the full column, but we'll give you this nugget of Bob McGinn's analysis of Favre's departure on the Web site of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Just about everyone who counted in the football department reached the conclusion that Favre could never win another championship." Wow. Apparently, that opinion was based mostly on Favre's second-half performance in the NFC championship game.

[pbmax]

So if McGinn is right, Favre's play against good defenses, in bad weather and poor playoff perfromances were their concerns.

[KYPack]

"Just about everyone who counted in the football department reached the conclusion that Favre could never win another championship."

Huh?

So I guess they didn't consult the staples and paper clip department of the Packers Organization?

Somebody, somewhere, stop this madness. Even goofy people can't take any more of this shit.

[boiga]

While McGinn's sources aren't exactly as credible as they used to be, I'm not too surprised by this.

We always knew that the head office thought Rodgers had a greater potential to lead the team to a super bowl than did Favre, otherwise they would have kicked Rodgers back into the backup role once Brett wanted back in. The reasoning behind this decision is a little sketch, but for as many times as we have knocked on the door, our playoff record stunk over the last 10 years.

If they thought a switch up at QB is what was necessary to take that extra step, it's hard to blame them. They are risking our guaranteed "very good" to try for "great." Unfortunately, the risk is that we're simply going to fall back into "suck."

[The Leaper]

We always knew that the head office thought Rodgers had a greater potential to lead the team to a super bowl than did Favre, otherwise they would have kicked Rodgers back into the backup role once Brett wanted back in. The reasoning behind this decision is a little sketch, but for as many times as we have knocked on the door, our playoff record stunk over the last 10 years.

I don't think it has anything to do with Favre's talent. In terms of talent and ability, Favre is head and shoulders above Rodgers. In terms of the last 10 years, there were many reasons other than Favre that contributed to our playoff losses...lack of talent (STL), injuries (ATL), coaching blunders (PHI), etc. Yeah, Favre had his faults in some of those games as well...but it wasn't that he lacked the ability to win a title.

It has everything to do with his mental mindset NOW. The Packers think Favre is used up...he has nothing left to give in terms of being mentally prepared to make another run. Physically, he has the talent to do it...but mentally, he's done in the opinion of the Packers.

[packers04]

its not hard to figure out where the football dept. is coming up with this conclusion. they say championships are won during the offseason.... favre doesnt fucking believe in the off-season anymore. if your only 80% committed to something, chances are you'll come up short every single time. we need 100% commitment from our leaders. all of them.

[boiga]

The Leaper, I don't disagree and I don't personally blame Favre for those losses.

But the pattern of closely lost important play off games over the last 10 years is probably something the brass used in their decision to not bring Brett back. If they thought that he can't win it for us in December, then there is little reason to bring him back in August.

I think it's fundamentally an unfair assessment, but I can see where they are coming from.

[pbmax]

KY, you don't think there is reason to judge that Favre might come up short in the playoffs again? Has it always been someone else's fault?

I think he has really struggled in bad weather and in the second half of seasons. I suspect that his performance has dipped against better competition as well. As Patler suggested weeks ago, might Favre be the better regular season QB and Rodgers better in the playoffs (if Rodgers had a full year of starts behind him)?

[pbmax]

Who says this?

Does this mean I can look forward to the Super Bowl Champion Cleveland Browns? According to all that I have read and heard, they WON the offseason this year.


its not hard to figure out where the football dept. is coming up with this conclusion. they say championships are won during the offseason.... favre doesnt fucking believe in the off-season anymore. if your only 80% committed to something, chances are you'll come up short every single time. we need 100% commitment from our leaders. all of them.

[pbmax]

So you think Sherman actually called for a jump ball into double coverage while everyone was run blocking?


... coaching blunders (PHI)

[packers04]

offseason practices/workouts, not offseason acquisition. thx. lol.

[pbmax]

My apologies, I misunderstood. Please carry on.


offseason practices/workouts, not offseason acquisition. thx. lol.

[The Leaper]

As Patler suggested weeks ago, might Favre be the better regular season QB and Rodgers better in the playoffs (if Rodgers had a full year of starts behind him)?

No.

Because with Rodgers, I think we lose the Seahawks game. Favre was the reason the team was able to rebound from a 14-0 deficit...the knowledge that Favre the playmaker could bring them back, both on our side and maybe even more importantly on the SEAHAWK side. He took the ball down 14-0 and threw it almost every time in leading the team down the field to get back into the game.

Rodgers isn't capable of that yet IMO...not that he can't get there, but not at this point or at any time in 2008 IMO.

We don't have a dominant enough defense or running game to be considered a title contender with Rodgers right now. Perhaps things change during the course of this season, and we develop a true dominant running game or a defense that can provide consistent pressure on the pocket...but at this point, I don't see it.

[The Leaper]

So you think Sherman actually called for a jump ball into double coverage while everyone was run blocking?


... coaching blunders (PHI)

4th and 1...punt.
4th and 26...ugh.

Was either Favre's fault max?

The Packers had that game won long before Favre's INT...but poor decision making by the coaches and poor execution elsewhere let it get away.

That doesn't excuse Favre's throw...but that does show that it wasn't just Favre that was responsible for those losses.

[Chevelle2]

So you think Sherman actually called for a jump ball into double coverage while everyone was run blocking?


... coaching blunders (PHI)

4th and 1...punt.
4th and 26...ugh.

Was either Favre's fault max?

The Packers had that game won long before Favre's INT...but poor decision making by the coaches and poor execution elsewhere let it get away.

That doesn't excuse Favre's throw...but that does show that it wasn't just Favre that was responsible for those losses.

What about all the other games? Do you have an excuse for all of them?

Bottom line: We have tried a new player, sometimes 2, 3, new players at every single position since 1997. 3 new coaches, and 3 GMs, all to no avail. The only other position left to change, is QB.

[The Leaper]

What about all the other games?

I'm not rehashing every game. What about the games we won? Are you forgetting those?

The notion that Favre is the MAIN reason for all our postseason failures in recent years is dumb. If you want to ascribe to it, fine. Be my guest.

[cpk1994]

As Patler suggested weeks ago, might Favre be the better regular season QB and Rodgers better in the playoffs (if Rodgers had a full year of starts behind him)?

No.

Because with Rodgers, I think we lose the Seahawks game. Favre was the reason the team was able to rebound from a 14-0 deficit...the knowledge that Favre the playmaker could bring them back, both on our side and maybe even more importantly on the SEAHAWK side. He took the ball down 14-0 and threw it almost every time in leading the team down the field to get back into the game.

Rodgers isn't capable of that yet IMO...not that he can't get there, but not at this point or at any time in 2008 IMO.

We don't have a dominant enough defense or running game to be considered a title contender with Rodgers right now. Perhaps things change during the course of this season, and we develop a true dominant running game or a defense that can provide consistent pressure on the pocket...but at this point, I don't see it.Then there is no reason to play the season. Might was well lock up the stadium and forfiet the season. NO reason to play the games. :roll:

[Chevelle2]

What about all the other games?

I'm not rehashing every game. What about the games we won? Are you forgetting those?


All 3?

[pbmax]

Granted, there was plenty of blame to go around as the Packers were clearly the better team that year.

But it also was an early indication that Favre in the playoffs was no longer bulletproof. Its almost as if he can't stand a close game late.



So you think Sherman actually called for a jump ball into double coverage while everyone was run blocking?


... coaching blunders (PHI)

4th and 1...punt.
4th and 26...ugh.

Was either Favre's fault max?

The Packers had that game won long before Favre's INT...but poor decision making by the coaches and poor execution elsewhere let it get away.

That doesn't excuse Favre's throw...but that does show that it wasn't just Favre that was responsible for those losses.

[motife]

Montauk J. Jones :

Favre can still play? Maybe in week three against Detroit but not in a money game, a cold game, and God know's not a playoff game.

Bigger the game, bigger the choke job.

One thing about Rogers is we won't watch some wild eyed QB choking away the big game or folding like a cheap suit in the playoff's.

July 27, 2008 4:09 PM

[gex]

Shadow wrote:
"Tiresome. Go back to the Hannah Montana cd."


haters and bashers :beat: :beat: :beat: :beat:

[pbmax]

First TD drive, 4 Favre passes, 1 Grant run and 1 sack.

Second TD drive, 6 Grant runs, 5 Favre passes (1 incomplete)

I think Rodgers can handle one drive that's all throws. But that's just speculation, we'll see.


No.

Because with Rodgers, I think we lose the Seahawks game. Favre was the reason the team was able to rebound from a 14-0 deficit...the knowledge that Favre the playmaker could bring them back, both on our side and maybe even more importantly on the SEAHAWK side. He took the ball down 14-0 and threw it almost every time in leading the team down the field to get back into the game.

[The Leaper]

Then there is no reason to play the season. Might was well lock up the stadium and forfiet the season. NO reason to play the games. :roll:

In terms of winning a title in 2008, that is right IMO.

However, as Rodgers gains experience...and other guys develop...we'll have a better chance in 2009 and beyond by making the move now. After losing Davis and Favre, we'll probably STILL have the youngest roster in the league in 2009, or very close to it. All those kids need to gain experieince...that's what the games will be played for primarily in 2008.

[The Leaper]

I think Rodgers can handle one drive that's all throws. But that's just speculation, we'll see.

Under that kind of pressure? I'm not as certain as you are.

Again, I'm not saying Rodgers won't reach that point...just that he isn't anywhere close to that yet, just as Favre wasn't in 1993 or 1994.

[cpk1994]

Then there is no reason to play the season. Might was well lock up the stadium and forfiet the season. NO reason to play the games. :roll:

In terms of winning a title in 2008, that is right IMO.

However, as Rodgers gains experience...and other guys develop...we'll have a better chance in 2009 and beyond by making the move now. After losing Davis and Favre, we'll probably STILL have the youngest roster in the league in 2009, or very close to it. All those kids need to gain experieince...that's what the games will be played for primarily in 2008.Ok boys you r heard Leaper. Cancel the season, shut this forum down, we have nothing to talk about until 2009. Leaper asys the season is over. Lets go nothing more to see. :roll:

[The Leaper]

Bottom line: We have tried a new player, sometimes 2, 3, new players at every single position since 1997. 3 new coaches, and 3 GMs, all to no avail. The only other position left to change, is QB.

Well, that QB has been the CONSTANT in non-losing records in 15 of the last 16 seasons.

I'm guessing that whoever the QBs are over the next 16 years, we won't come close to having 8 wins or more in 15 of them.

So, feel free to blame Favre all you want.

[Chevelle2]

Bottom line: We have tried a new player, sometimes 2, 3, new players at every single position since 1997. 3 new coaches, and 3 GMs, all to no avail. The only other position left to change, is QB.

Well, that QB has been the CONSTANT in non-losing records in 15 of the last 16 seasons.

I'm guessing that whoever the QBs are over the next 16 years, we won't come close to having 8 wins or more in 15 of them.

So, feel free to blame Favre all you want.

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

[Chevelle2]

Leaper -

Yes or no.

If Rodgers has 3 playoff wins from now until 2018, does he deserve a spot on this roster?

Yes, or no.

[The Leaper]

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

There are plenty who have none in 17 years.

[Chevelle2]

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

There are plenty who have none in 17 years.

Oh so we should be content with mediocracy, I see.

[bobblehead]

We always knew that the head office thought Rodgers had a greater potential to lead the team to a super bowl than did Favre, otherwise they would have kicked Rodgers back into the backup role once Brett wanted back in. The reasoning behind this decision is a little sketch, but for as many times as we have knocked on the door, our playoff record stunk over the last 10 years.

I don't think it has anything to do with Favre's talent. In terms of talent and ability, Favre is head and shoulders above Rodgers. In terms of the last 10 years, there were many reasons other than Favre that contributed to our playoff losses...lack of talent (STL), injuries (ATL), coaching blunders (PHI), etc. Yeah, Favre had his faults in some of those games as well...but it wasn't that he lacked the ability to win a title.

It has everything to do with his mental mindset NOW. The Packers think Favre is used up...he has nothing left to give in terms of being mentally prepared to make another run. Physically, he has the talent to do it...but mentally, he's done in the opinion of the Packers.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but as I continue to say. If I have an employee who constantly has similar problems and has a different excuse everytime.....I eventually point out the common denominator in the equation.

[Chevelle2]

Leaper -

Yes or no.

If Rodgers has 3 playoff wins from now until 2018, does he deserve a spot on this roster?

Yes, or no.

[The Leaper]

If Rodgers has 3 playoff wins from now until 2018, does he deserve a spot on this roster?

He deserves a spot on the roster regardless. That isn't the point. Rodgers is the future...and he should find success if his continued growth to this point means anything.

The point is the GLEE that many people here have over the loss of a HOF QB who practically guaranteed 8 wins a year just by stepping on the field.

I'm not as happy and joyful over that as many of you are. Losing a legend makes the road that much tougher. I just don't buy into the argument that the team got instantly better without Favre...a guy who had an MVP type season in 2007.

[bobblehead]

Shadow wrote:
"Tiresome. Go back to the Hannah Montana cd."


haters and bashers :beat: :beat: :beat: :beat:

same tired message...don't counter anyones arguement....just call them names and feel superior.

[bobblehead]

Bottom line: We have tried a new player, sometimes 2, 3, new players at every single position since 1997. 3 new coaches, and 3 GMs, all to no avail. The only other position left to change, is QB.

Well, that QB has been the CONSTANT in non-losing records in 15 of the last 16 seasons.

I'm guessing that whoever the QBs are over the next 16 years, we won't come close to having 8 wins or more in 15 of them.

So, feel free to blame Favre all you want.

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

that is an ineffective point, how many other teams are you talking about?? Only 10% of the teams in the NFL have more than one superbowl in the last 17 years.

Leap, I agree with one thing, favres greatest accomplishment is having only one losing season...and he is the common denominator in that. I won't be happy if rodgers leads us to a .500 season.

[digitaldean]

I'd say the majority of the 'Rats aren't jumping for joy on bidding Favre farewell. But Brett's immaturity on past "offenses" the Packers did against him has to take the cake.

From McCarthy's description of their conversation, he seemed to just want to re-hash all that had happened.

Frankly, I'm happy to see the complaining version of Favre leave. He talks to the media any chance he gets vs. talking directly to someone in the organization. My God, Wendy Nix, Ed Werder, Rachel Nichols and Peter King get regular texts/phone calls from Camp Favre. How stupid is that?

I am going to miss the football part of Favre who went out onto the football field and showed he was one of the best instinctive QB's to play the game. It will be surreal to have a season without him, but you know what? Life and time marches on. We would be without #4 either now or at most 3 years down the line.

We could make another SB march this season. Yes, the odds would be much better if he was here. But in his present basket case emotional frame of mind and his junior high girl type of grudge holding, I don't want him here.

M3 stated it clearly, why would I want to introduce anything negative into the locker room. Yes, some would rather have Favre. But some want Rodgers. That's neither here nor there. It's a team game.... ON AND OFF THE FIELD. I think Brett's lost sight of that.

The sniping of TT is immature at best. He's made his share of bonehead moves/non-moves and draft picks. But, for crying out loud, give it a rest.

Brett's gone figuratively if not literally. Until he can formulate the words "I'm sorry" to the Packer fans, he better move before the door hits his ass on the way out.

[DonHutson]

For sale: one emotionally crippled basketcase QB who won't watch film and can't win a title. Let the bidding begin!

How 'bout maybe some of these sources at 1165 Lombardi shut their fuckin' mouths until after the trade?

[RIPackerFan]

I think that we should all realize, we are not hearing the full story from either side in this matter.

I see a lot of people spitting out the talking points by the Packers and on the other side, a lot of people spitting out the talking points from the Favres.

I am sure the truth is somewhere in between.

However, I for one, am not happy that the man who has been the face of the Packers for the past 17 yrs is leaving the team - regardless of who is at fault.

Who knows what will happen in the future. However, HOF QBs with the longevity and talent of a Favre don't come very often. And while I am excited to see what Arod and this team can do, I am sickened and disappointed with all parties that I will have to watch Favre in another uniform.

[KYPack]

KY, you don't think there is reason to judge that Favre might come up short in the playoffs again? Has it always been someone else's fault?

I think he has really struggled in bad weather and in the second half of seasons. I suspect that his performance has dipped against better competition as well. As Patler suggested weeks ago, might Favre be the better regular season QB and Rodgers better in the playoffs (if Rodgers had a full year of starts behind him)?

Nah, PB.

I was more commenting on the language.

That "football dept" made me laugh.

[Patler]

that is an ineffective point, how many other teams are you talking about?? Only 10% of the teams in the NFL have more than one superbowl in the last 17 years.

Leap, I agree with one thing, favres greatest accomplishment is having only one losing season...and he is the common denominator in that. I won't be happy if rodgers leads us to a .500 season.

Well, in 17 years you could have only at most 8 teams win multiple super bowls, so the fact that 3 did is not too bad of an argument, especially since the possible number of multiple winners is even less because several teams won more than 2.

So you won't be happy if Rodgers has a .500 season, but it is a feather in Favre's cap that he had two, and four others just 1 game over .500? In 7 of his 16 seasons he was within one game of .500 or worse.

[RIPackerFan]

I would see this season as a failure if we were only 8-8 - but more because this team is better than that. We went 13-3 last year - and we basically only lost a QB (and many people believe our new QB is better) - we should be better than 8-8.

Of course, if we become injury-ridden, I won't look too poorly at 8-8, but even with a slightly more normal amount of injuries, we have enough talent to be better than 8-8.

[pbmax]

Yeah, it does read oddly. I lack the skill of a NY Post headline writer to get it short and funny (or at least punny). Took three attempts to make it fit.




Nah, PB.

I was more commenting on the language.

That "football dept" made me laugh.

[Spaulding]

I think that we should all realize, we are not hearing the full story from either side in this matter.

I see a lot of people spitting out the talking points by the Packers and on the other side, a lot of people spitting out the talking points from the Favres.

I am sure the truth is somewhere in between.

However, I for one, am not happy that the man who has been the face of the Packers for the past 17 yrs is leaving the team - regardless of who is at fault.

Who knows what will happen in the future. However, HOF QBs with the longevity and talent of a Favre don't come very often. And while I am excited to see what Arod and this team can do, I am sickened and disappointed with all parties that I will have to watch Favre in another uniform.

Excellent post - sums my thoughts as well. Would have loved (pre all this drama) to see Favre play again this year and am sad I don't get a chance to see him in Green and Gold again.

Just wish it hadn't come to this where the Packer Nation seems divided.

[Gunakor]

Bottom line: We have tried a new player, sometimes 2, 3, new players at every single position since 1997. 3 new coaches, and 3 GMs, all to no avail. The only other position left to change, is QB.

Well, that QB has been the CONSTANT in non-losing records in 15 of the last 16 seasons.

I'm guessing that whoever the QBs are over the next 16 years, we won't come close to having 8 wins or more in 15 of them.

So, feel free to blame Favre all you want.

He has also been the CONSTANT in a 3-9 postseason record over the last decade. Feel free to blame everyone else for that if you want, but I refuse to absolve Favre of any responsibility for that. For every 4th and 26 game, there's an INT in overtime.

I agree with you that this season isn't going to result in a SB, but I'd be very suprised if this team can't manage 8 wins. My point in the above statement is that the thought that we should hang on to Favre this year because he gives us a shot at a SB is ludicrous. Favre has typically LOST in January. That is fact, one I do not expect to change this year or next year or ever again. Hence why I say he is not a SB caliber QB. He's a SB caliber QB from September through December, for sure, but not in January.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

There are plenty who have none in 17 years.

Oh so we should be content with mediocracy, I see.

Should we expect it from our posters as well?

Mediocrity. :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

We always knew that the head office thought Rodgers had a greater potential to lead the team to a super bowl than did Favre, otherwise they would have kicked Rodgers back into the backup role once Brett wanted back in. The reasoning behind this decision is a little sketch, but for as many times as we have knocked on the door, our playoff record stunk over the last 10 years.

I don't think it has anything to do with Favre's talent. In terms of talent and ability, Favre is head and shoulders above Rodgers. In terms of the last 10 years, there were many reasons other than Favre that contributed to our playoff losses...lack of talent (STL), injuries (ATL), coaching blunders (PHI), etc. Yeah, Favre had his faults in some of those games as well...but it wasn't that he lacked the ability to win a title.

It has everything to do with his mental mindset NOW. The Packers think Favre is used up...he has nothing left to give in terms of being mentally prepared to make another run. Physically, he has the talent to do it...but mentally, he's done in the opinion of the Packers.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but as I continue to say. If I have an employee who constantly has similar problems and has a different excuse everytime.....I eventually point out the common denominator in the equation.

That being you? :oops:

[MJZiggy]

So you think Sherman actually called for a jump ball into double coverage while everyone was run blocking?


... coaching blunders (PHI)

4th and 1...punt.
4th and 26...ugh.

Was either Favre's fault max?

The Packers had that game won long before Favre's INT...but poor decision making by the coaches and poor execution elsewhere let it get away.

That doesn't excuse Favre's throw...but that does show that it wasn't just Favre that was responsible for those losses.

I think, from the comments that I've read that the Packers were more concerned with the more recent playoff performances as opposed to what happened in 2003...and they're concerned with Soldier Field and Dallas. Perhaps the whole team played like shit, but perhaps they also saw a poor quarterback performance in those games and became concerned by it. At least that's the impression I get from the stuff I've read and as much as I dis the media, this impression has come from more than one source which lends a minor bit of crediblity...

[mission]

The Law of Bob

When Bob has a problem with everybody/thing, the problem is usually Bob.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The Law of Bob

When Bob has a problem with everybody/thing, the problem is usually Bob.

Hey, it's our friend Bob.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/images/enzyte1.jpg

[mission]

The Law of Bob

When Bob has a problem with everybody/thing, the problem is usually Bob.

Hey, it's our friend Bob.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/images/enzyte1.jpg

Exactly. He's obviously the problem. Makes me wanna beat the shit out of him just lookin at him.




But I only have a problem with Bob.


Not everyone.

Well, except all the idiots here.

[falco]

Exactly. He's obviously the problem. Makes me wanna beat the shit out of him just lookin at him.




But I only have a problem with Bob.


Not everyone.

Well, except all the idiots here.

why not just punch him in the shoulder

[mission]

Exactly. He's obviously the problem. Makes me wanna beat the shit out of him just lookin at him.




But I only have a problem with Bob.


Not everyone.

Well, except all the idiots here.

why not just punch him in the shoulder

cuz he's a guy in a john c. maxwell book ...

i mean, i can get away with beating the shit out of fake people.

[Fritz]

So you think Sherman actually called for a jump ball into double coverage while everyone was run blocking?


... coaching blunders (PHI)

I think he did, dude. I think he did.