Report: Rex Ryan Didn’t Want Favre

[packers11]

pft.com


Report: Rex Ryan Didn’t Want Favre
Posted by Mike Florio on March 29, 2009, 11:47 a.m.

The moment free agency opened last month, Jets coach Rex Ryan was knocking on Bart Scott’s door.

Thus, Ryan had an obvious interest in Scott.

In contrast, Gary Myers of the New York Daily News reports that Ryan didn’t even call former Jets quarterback Brett Favre.

Myers points out that Ryan was hired on January 19, and that Favre retired on February 11. In the interim, Ryan didn’t reach out to Favre once in an effort to persuade him to play.

“If Ryan wanted Favre, he would have called him or shown up on his doorstep in Hattiesburg,” Myers writes.

And he’s right. The Jets knew that they couldn’t afford Favre’s $13 million salary in 2009, but they didn’t want to cut him. So by not applying lips to Lord Favre’s buttocks, Ryan sent a powerful message.

In the end, Favre blinked, retiring before the Jets had to dump his cap number.

That said, if Favre is willing to take the P.R. hit arising from his second straight unretirement, all he needs to do is send the Comissioner a letter asking to be removed from the reserve-retired list, and the Jets would have no choice but to cut him. Unlike the cap-rich Packers a year ago, the Jets wouldn’t be able to absorb Favre’s salary.




Could Favre comeback??? :lol:

[Partial]

Don't call it a comeback. He been here for years. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7l250E5uM4)

[Joemailman]

Favre has a bad shoulder

Favre will be 40 in October

Favre faded badly down the stretch last year.

Favre got a new chainsaw for Christmas (Okay, I made that one up.)

It's over, and Favre knows it this time.

Happy Retirement, Brett. You've earned it.

[Fritz]

Sigh.

I hope he stays retired this time.

[BF4MVP]

It's not a surprise Ryan didn't want him..

He had a great September last year but was awful after that..Then he took his terrible play to a whole new level in December..

Plus he's turning 40 and makes 13 million bucks..

They couldn't afford him anyways so it doesn't matter, but even if they could, I don't see why they would want him...

Happy retirement Brett..And stay there this time..PLEASE

[Lurker64]

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out an not sign the retirement papers. He pretty much has to sign them by the league rules, but Goodell is a trailblazer. After last year, Favre's waffle house and annual fade down the stretch might hurt the NFL brand more than Favre's legacy and good early season would help it.

[Tarlam!]

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out an not sign the retirement papers.

I believe they're signed, sealed and delivered. It was made a point of when he retired...

[Patler]

In the end, it appears Favre did exactly what he said he would never do, hang on until he wasn't wanted. That's OK, it was his right to do that. However, it does show how rare it is for a great one to go out while still great. Barry Sanders did, Jim Brown did, probably a few others, too. But it's not common for that to happen.

[Lurker64]

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out and not sign the retirement papers.

I believe they're signed, sealed and delivered. It was made a point of when he retired...

Sorry, I meant the "unretirement papers" above. When Favre unretires, he has to send some sort of letter to the league requesting reinstatement, which Goodell could potentially decline to approve.

[Partial]

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out an not sign the retirement papers. He pretty much has to sign them by the league rules, but Goodell is a trailblazer. After last year, Favre's waffle house and annual fade down the stretch might hurt the NFL brand more than Favre's legacy and good early season would help it.

annual fade? Don't you think thats a bit harsh and just straight up wrong? He was hurt last year. Two years ago, he played quite well taking his team to the championship game.

It will probably be a long time before we sniff a championship game again, so show some respect for the greatest player in franchise history.

[Lurker64]

annual fade? Don't you think thats a bit harsh and just straight up wrong? He was hurt last year. Two years ago, he played quite well taking his team to the championship game.

It will probably be a long time before we sniff a championship game again, so show some respect for the greatest player in franchise history.

Just the facts: In regular season games played in December or later, in the past 5 seasons Favre has had the following performances.

2008: 4 TD, 8 INT (4 games)
2007: 6 TD 5 INT (4 games)
2006: 3 TD 6 INT (4 games)
2005: 1 TD 10 INT (5 games)
2004: 8 TD 6 INT (5 games)

Prior to December in each of these seasons Favre threw:
2008: 18 TD 14 INT (12 games)
2007: 22 TD 10 INT (12 games)
2006: 15 TD 12 INT (12 games)
2005: 19 TD 19 INT (11 games)
2004: 22 TD 11 INT (11 games)

Now considering that Favre's TD/INT ratio has been much worse later in the season that it is earlier in the season over the past five years, including 2007 when by all accounts he had a great season, I don't think "annual fade" is at all unfair, simply descriptive. When he got older, he didn't play as well towards the end of the season and in harsh conditions... it happens to every old guy in the league, hall of fame QBs are no exception. I'm just stating facts, there's no disrespect involved in stating facts.

[Waldo]

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out an not sign the retirement papers. He pretty much has to sign them by the league rules, but Goodell is a trailblazer. After last year, Favre's waffle house and annual fade down the stretch might hurt the NFL brand more than Favre's legacy and good early season would help it.

annual fade? Don't you think thats a bit harsh and just straight up wrong? He was hurt last year. Two years ago, he played quite well taking his team to the championship game.

It will probably be a long time before we sniff a championship game again, so show some respect for the greatest player in franchise history.

Young 'uns.

Starr, Hutson > Favre.

[Packnut]

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out an not sign the retirement papers. He pretty much has to sign them by the league rules, but Goodell is a trailblazer. After last year, Favre's waffle house and annual fade down the stretch might hurt the NFL brand more than Favre's legacy and good early season would help it.

annual fade? Don't you think thats a bit harsh and just straight up wrong? He was hurt last year. Two years ago, he played quite well taking his team to the championship game.

It will probably be a long time before we sniff a championship game again, so show some respect for the greatest player in franchise history.

Young 'uns.

Starr, Hutson > Favre.

I would beg to differ depending on your criteria. Let me first state that I am without a doubt, the biggest Bart Starr fan on the planet. No classier individual has EVER been born than Mr Starr. Also, he was without a doubt, the most intelligent QB to ever play the game.

That said, he played on teams full of all-pros. He played for the greatest coach who ever walked the sidelines.

Favre played for one good coach, then played for an idiot and then for a guy who is and was learning on the job. He had less than stellar players around him more often than not.

Favre took a franchise that was DEAD. It had NO HEART or SOUL. Any honest Packer fan would admit that it was downright EMBARRASSING being a Packer fan in the 70's and 80's. Favre gave us PRIDE. He made Sunday's fun again. We always thought there was a chance with #04. Just because there are a lot of ungrateful clowns who dis-respect and take for granted what he did, does'nt make his impact any less.

Hutson played in game that was totally different from what the NFL evolved into in the 60's. It's tough to measure the effects of the old timers and compare them to what we have now.

[bobblehead]

In the end, it appears Favre did exactly what he said he would never do, hang on until he wasn't wanted. That's OK, it was his right to do that. However, it does show how rare it is for a great one to go out while still great. Barry Sanders did, Jim Brown did, probably a few others, too. But it's not common for that to happen.

Yea, why can't they all get out on top like Evander Holyfield. :shock:

[Patler]

annual fade? Don't you think thats a bit harsh and just straight up wrong? He was hurt last year. Two years ago, he played quite well taking his team to the championship game.

It will probably be a long time before we sniff a championship game again, so show some respect for the greatest player in franchise history.

Just the facts: In regular season games played in December or later, in the past 5 seasons Favre has had the following performances.

2008: 4 TD, 8 INT (4 games)
2007: 6 TD 5 INT (4 games)
2006: 3 TD 6 INT (4 games)
2005: 1 TD 10 INT (5 games)
2004: 8 TD 6 INT (5 games)

Prior to December in each of these seasons Favre threw:
2008: 18 TD 14 INT (12 games)
2007: 22 TD 10 INT (12 games)
2006: 15 TD 12 INT (12 games)
2005: 19 TD 19 INT (11 games)
2004: 22 TD 11 INT (11 games)

Now considering that Favre's TD/INT ratio has been much worse later in the season that it is earlier in the season over the past five years, including 2007 when by all accounts he had a great season, I don't think "annual fade" is at all unfair, simply descriptive. When he got older, he didn't play as well towards the end of the season and in harsh conditions... it happens to every old guy in the league, hall of fame QBs are no exception. I'm just stating facts, there's no disrespect involved in stating facts.

I'll add a few more stats to Lurkers numbers:

For the last four years, Favre has tailed off rather significantly the last 5 games. 2008 was by no stretch of the imagination an oddity. Even 2007 was not great statistically for him over the last 1/3 of the season. The following are for the last 5 games in each season:

2008 - 98/175, 1110 yards, 2 TDs, 9 Ints. - 57.56 rating.
2007 - 65/110, 799 yards, 6 TDs, 6 Ints. - 77.05 rating.
2006 - 113/210, 1251 yards, 4 TDs, 8 Ints. - 62.22 rating.
2005 - 117/206, 1167 yards, 1 TD, 10 Ints. - 54.41 rating.

In total, 20 games, 13 TDs and 33 interceptions. He generally started the seasons quite strong, but finished rather poorly.

[Partial]

I would be curious as to what they are throughout his career, and what other QBs numbers are whom play in the cold (IE. Chicago, NY, Buffalo, etc)

[Patler]

I would be curious as to what they are throughout his career, and what other QBs numbers are whom play in the cold (IE. Chicago, NY, Buffalo, etc)

Just go to nfl.com, pick the players besides Favre that you want to consider, and look at the game logs for the seasons you are interested in. They come up in a nice chart for the whole season, game by game.

Share your results with us. Could be a good discussion.

[texaspackerbacker]

Imagine, this could have been OUR problem--coaxing Favre to answer the call one more time --age 40, $13 million, sore shoulder, and all--or go with Brohm or Flynn--because Aaron Rodgers would have been long gone.

Be Careful what you wish for ........

Or maybe we would have brought in Jeff George (see today's Yahoo news).

[The Shadow]

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out an not sign the retirement papers. He pretty much has to sign them by the league rules, but Goodell is a trailblazer. After last year, Favre's waffle house and annual fade down the stretch might hurt the NFL brand more than Favre's legacy and good early season would help it.

annual fade? Don't you think thats a bit harsh and just straight up wrong? He was hurt last year. Two years ago, he played quite well taking his team to the championship game.

It will probably be a long time before we sniff a championship game again, so show some respect for the greatest player in franchise history.

Young 'uns.

Starr, Hutson > Favre.

I would beg to differ depending on your criteria. Let me first state that I am without a doubt, the biggest Bart Starr fan on the planet. No classier individual has EVER been born than Mr Starr. Also, he was without a doubt, the most intelligent QB to ever play the game.

That said, he played on teams full of all-pros. He played for the greatest coach who ever walked the sidelines.

Favre played for one good coach, then played for an idiot and then for a guy who is and was learning on the job. He had less than stellar players around him more often than not.

Favre took a franchise that was DEAD. It had NO HEART or SOUL. Any honest Packer fan would admit that it was downright EMBARRASSING being a Packer fan in the 70's and 80's. Favre gave us PRIDE. He made Sunday's fun again. We always thought there was a chance with #04. Just because there are a lot of ungrateful clowns who dis-respect and take for granted what he did, does'nt make his impact any less.

Hutson played in game that was totally different from what the NFL evolved into in the 60's. It's tough to measure the effects of the old timers and compare them to what we have now.

Um, you seem to forget that the ONLY time Favre ever won a championship is when Ron Wolf surrounded him with easily the best talent in the NFL. The next year, with virtually the same talent, an inferior Broncos team won.
The truly great quarterbacks harness the talent around them to get the most from their teams.

[RashanGary]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

[Fritz]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

[Lurker64]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

[The Shadow]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

I much prefer nice old boring championships.

[RashanGary]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

I much prefer nice old boring championships.

I really only remember the last 17 years or so really well (Favre era) and I haven't seen many of those in GB over the last couple decades. I'd be happy as hell to win some good, old fashioned, boring championships. Hopefully Rodgers brings some consistent (not game losing INT) football.

[cpk1994]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

I much prefer nice old boring championships.Bart Starr was very adept at getting those. It comes down to championships. Starr is > Favre in that one and is why he goes down as the greatest player of all time for the Packers IMO.

[Pugger]

Yes, Hudson played in a different era, but that gentleman changed the game forever with his play. He held onto scores of individual records that were only broken after many decades and after they added more games to each season. Plus he won a few championships of his own. These reasons are why I think Hudson was the greatest player to ever play for the Pack. :D

[bobblehead]

I would be curious as to what they are throughout his career, and what other QBs numbers are whom play in the cold (IE. Chicago, NY, Buffalo, etc)

Just go to nfl.com, pick the players besides Favre that you want to consider, and look at the game logs for the seasons you are interested in. They come up in a nice chart for the whole season, game by game.

Share your results with us. Could be a good discussion.

Can we start with ARod?

[bobblehead]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

Yea, in 2007 he was awesome for most of the season. '08 was the first time I DIDN'T want him to retire....and of course he did.

[Patler]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

[The Shadow]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

After having had the opportunity to watch both, I agree.

[KYPack]

Yes, Hudson played in a different era, but that gentleman changed the game forever with his play. He held onto scores of individual records that were only broken after many decades and after they added more games to each season. Plus he won a few championships of his own. These reasons are why I think Hudson was the greatest player to ever play for the Pack. :D

Hutson, Pug.

But thanks for posting that. Don Hutson is one of the NFL's greatest players and might be the greatest Packer ever.

Don and Sammy Baugh are two all-time greats that I fear will fade into the mists of time.

[Packman_26]

I am admittedly not old enough to have seen anybody from the 60's packers teams. I can bet that some of you would have said that Hudson or Starr were better than Favre even 2 years ago. But I just can't help but believe that some of the posters here are letting their anger cloud their judgement. I am certain that this thread would be much different if Favre had stayed retired after the 07 season.
I happen to think that Favre was in the wrong during this whole ordeal, but for someone to call him overrated is ludacris. The man threw more touchdowns and won more MVPS than anyone ever to lace them up.
Call him selfcentered and a liar if you wish. I can even understand washed up. But overrated he certainly is not.

[packers11]

I am admittedly not old enough to have seen anybody from the 60's packers teams. I can bet that some of you would have said that Hudson or Starr were better than Favre even 2 years ago. But I just can't help but believe that some of the posters here are letting their anger cloud their judgement. I am certain that this thread would be much different if Favre had stayed retired after the 07 season.
I happen to think that Favre was in the wrong during this whole ordeal, but for someone to call him overrated is ludacris. The man threw more touchdowns and won more MVPS than anyone ever to lace them up.
Call him selfcentered and a liar if you wish. I can even understand washed up. But overrated he certainly is not.

100% Agree... Although I am only in my 20's and have not seen some of the older players play their game... Favre was on of the best i've ever watched, and I think some of the posters here are still a little bitter on how he left Green Bay...

If Dan Marino can be considered a "all time great" without a Super Bowl ring, and Payton Manning is "one of the best ever" with only 1 ring then Brett Favre belongs right in the top also for what he did not only for this franchise but the NFL...

BF is the best GB packers QB in my opinion... Take a poll in a couple of years when all the emotions have settled and most would agree with me...

[Patler]

I am admittedly not old enough to have seen anybody from the 60's packers teams. I can bet that some of you would have said that Hudson or Starr were better than Favre even 2 years ago. But I just can't help but believe that some of the posters here are letting their anger cloud their judgement. I am certain that this thread would be much different if Favre had stayed retired after the 07 season.
I happen to think that Favre was in the wrong during this whole ordeal, but for someone to call him overrated is ludacris. The man threw more touchdowns and won more MVPS than anyone ever to lace them up.
Call him selfcentered and a liar if you wish. I can even understand washed up. But overrated he certainly is not.

Overrated or not overrated relative to what "rating"?

"Overrated" is probably a term that will be tossed around with discussions of Favre for one simple reason. He accomplished less than many others in terms of playoff success, and quite a few of the playoff departures came with very bad games from Favre. Two SB appearances and just one SB win will not impress people years from now in spite of his individual success. Those who look to playoff success will consider Favre "overrated".

Peyton Manning will hear the same if he wins no more Super Bowls, even if and when he breaks Favre's records.
"Overrated" is often linked to Marino's career as well, for the same reason.

Its the same in other sports, too. A player with tremendous personal achievement, but relatively minor team success is often considered "overrated". Even more so for a QB, who plays a position that influences game outcome more than any other on the football team.

By the way, doesn't Manning have just as many MVPs as Favre???

[Partial]

I am admittedly not old enough to have seen anybody from the 60's packers teams. I can bet that some of you would have said that Hudson or Starr were better than Favre even 2 years ago. But I just can't help but believe that some of the posters here are letting their anger cloud their judgement. I am certain that this thread would be much different if Favre had stayed retired after the 07 season.
I happen to think that Favre was in the wrong during this whole ordeal, but for someone to call him overrated is ludacris. The man threw more touchdowns and won more MVPS than anyone ever to lace them up.
Call him selfcentered and a liar if you wish. I can even understand washed up. But overrated he certainly is not.

100% Agree... Although I am only in my 20's and have not seen some of the older players play their game... Favre was on of the best i've ever watched, and I think some of the posters here are still a little bitter on how he left Green Bay...

If Dan Marino can be considered a "all time great" without a Super Bowl ring, and Payton Manning is "one of the best ever" with only 1 ring then Brett Favre belongs right in the top also for what he did not only for this franchise but the NFL...

BF is the best GB packers QB in my opinion... Take a poll in a couple of years when all the emotions have settled and most would agree with me...

Yep, whole heartedly agree. I think PManning will ultimately better, but he's not as exciting, nor does he have the arm of Favre. Manning is the perfect combination of arm strength, accuracy, and good judgement. He should go down as the smartest quarterback ever.

Despite Favre's interceptions, he's right in line with some of the all-time bests for TD/INT ratio and INTS per pass if I remember correctly. I believe Harvey posted a comprehensive breakdown of this before all this bojive went down.

[Tarlam!]

Favre = overrated.

Not to pick on any one's opinion on who was the best QB in G&G etc (youngins, whom only ever saw #4 can't compare except via stats, old timers might get caught up in nostalgia), but I think this comment from JH is a bit "thin".

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad. He himself always stated young QBs shouldn't use his game, techniques or attitude as an example of how to play the position.

There is no questioning his passion and dedication. He was able to bring that passion out of GB fans, an emotion that had been lost in the '70's and '80's. And, he gave the team a chance to win, every game he played in. It was exciting to watch him.

I'm not sure what you or others are actually "rating" when discussing Favre, Nick. I find it very difficult to overrate the guy.

[Patler]

Well, I for one have always preferred Starr. I said so long before Favre retired the first time. Winning championship after championship sure was fun!

In all honesty, in the mid '90s I really expected to relive the fun I had in the '60s as a Packer fan. I expected S.B. appearances to be common, with multiple Lombardi trophies coming to Green Bay. I expected the Packers led by Favre to do what the Steelers, Cowboys and 49ers had, and what the Patriots have done since.

I blame many things for the Packers failure to accomplish more during Favre's career. One thing I blame is Favre himself. Maybe it isn't fair, but I am a fan, I don't have to be fair! :lol:

[Patler]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad. He himself always stated young QBs shouldn't use his game, techniques or attitude as an example of how to play the position.


Not to diminish the excitement that Favre brought to the team, but many will say the excitement returned with Majikowski. He was Favre before Favre. A guy that made plays out of nothing. Favre was certainly better, but a lot of excitement returned with Majik.

[Waldo]

I am admittedly not old enough to have seen anybody from the 60's packers teams. I can bet that some of you would have said that Hudson or Starr were better than Favre even 2 years ago. But I just can't help but believe that some of the posters here are letting their anger cloud their judgement. I am certain that this thread would be much different if Favre had stayed retired after the 07 season.
I happen to think that Favre was in the wrong during this whole ordeal, but for someone to call him overrated is ludacris. The man threw more touchdowns and won more MVPS than anyone ever to lace them up.
Call him selfcentered and a liar if you wish. I can even understand washed up. But overrated he certainly is not.

Overrated or not overrated relative to what "rating"?

"Overrated" is probably a term that will be tossed around with discussions of Favre for one simple reason. He accomplished less than many others in terms of playoff success, and quite a few of the playoff departures came with very bad games from Favre. Two SB appearances and just one SB win will not impress people years from now in spite of his individual success. Those who look to playoff success will consider Favre "overrated".

Peyton Manning will hear the same if he wins no more Super Bowls, even if and when he breaks Favre's records.
"Overrated" is often linked to Marino's career as well, for the same reason.

Its the same in other sports, too. A player with tremendous personal achievement, but relatively minor team success is often considered "overrated". Even more so for a QB, who plays a position that influences game outcome more than any other on the football team.

By the way, doesn't Manning have just as many MVPs as Favre???

Same with Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas.

It is only the technicality, that the AP MVP didn't exist back then, someone else gave the award and called it something else (Player of the year I believe), but it was still the prestigious award given to the best football player.

Packer fans have been fed a lie and believed it for more than a decade, that Brett Favre was the only 3 time MVP, while this is technically correct in the way it was framed, he was not the only player to be acknowledged as the best player in the NFL via award on 3 separate occasions, and the award being the one recognized as signifying the best player for the season. Brown and Unitas won that honor as well.

Don Hutson won 2 MVP's, and he is the only WR to ever win the recognized MVP (Rice won one as well, but it was not an AP MVP, and the AP MVP existed at the time).

[Patler]

By the way, doesn't Manning have just as many MVPs as Favre???

Same with Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas.

It is only the technicality, that the AP MVP didn't exist back then, someone else gave the award and called it something else (Player of the year I believe), but it was still the prestigious award given to the best football player.

Packer fans have been fed a lie and believed it for more than a decade, that Brett Favre was the only 3 time MVP, while this is technically correct in the way it was framed, he was not the only player to be acknowledged as the best player in the NFL via award on 3 separate occasions, and the award being the one recognized as signifying the best player for the season. Brown and Unitas won that honor as well.


Yup, and now it is being modified to "the only player to win three consecutive MVPs", thereby excluding Manning. I'm too lazy tonight to see if Unitas or Brown won consecutive ones or not, and I personally do not remember.

[Waldo]

By the way, doesn't Manning have just as many MVPs as Favre???

Same with Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas.

It is only the technicality, that the AP MVP didn't exist back then, someone else gave the award and called it something else (Player of the year I believe), but it was still the prestigious award given to the best football player.

Packer fans have been fed a lie and believed it for more than a decade, that Brett Favre was the only 3 time MVP, while this is technically correct in the way it was framed, he was not the only player to be acknowledged as the best player in the NFL via award on 3 separate occasions, and the award being the one recognized as signifying the best player for the season. Brown and Unitas won that honor as well.


Yup, and now it is being modified to "the only player to win three consecutive MVPs", thereby excluding Manning. I'm too lazy tonight to see if Unitas or Brown won consecutive ones or not, and I personally do not remember.

No, they did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Most_Valuable_Player_Awar d

[Pugger]

Yes, Hudson played in a different era, but that gentleman changed the game forever with his play. He held onto scores of individual records that were only broken after many decades and after they added more games to each season. Plus he won a few championships of his own. These reasons are why I think Hudson was the greatest player to ever play for the Pack. :D

Hutson, Pug.

But thanks for posting that. Don Hutson is one of the NFL's greatest players and might be the greatest Packer ever.

Don and Sammy Baugh are two all-time greats that I fear will fade into the mists of time.

Opps!! My bad!!! :oops:

[Pugger]

Well, I for one have always preferred Starr. I said so long before Favre retired the first time. Winning championship after championship sure was fun!

In all honesty, in the mid '90s I really expected to relive the fun I had in the '60s as a Packer fan. I expected S.B. appearances to be common, with multiple Lombardi trophies coming to Green Bay. I expected the Packers led by Favre to do what the Steelers, Cowboys and 49ers had, and what the Patriots have done since.

I blame many things for the Packers failure to accomplish more during Favre's career. One thing I blame is Favre himself. Maybe it isn't fair, but I am a fan, I don't have to be fair! :lol:

But Starr and most other QBs who won multiple SBs had stability at the HC spot. Favre had mediocre HCs after Holgrem left for Seattle. Favre didn't help himself with stupid INTs but he was the type of player who needed a HC who is good with QBs and his play didn't improve until TT brought in MM. Rhodes and Shermy were not the type of coaches a player like Brett needed to bring out the best in him!

[Waldo]

Blame everything but Favre for Favre not playing great.

[Pugger]

Blame everything but Favre for Favre not playing great.

That's not what I meant. Favre was responsible for not playing great but all players - even the good ones - need direction and coaching. It was no coincidence that Favre's play improved when he had a strong HC who would actually hold him responsible for his boneheaded plays.

[Patler]

But Starr and most other QBs who won multiple SBs had stability at the HC spot. Favre had mediocre HCs after Holgrem left for Seattle. Favre didn't help himself with stupid INTs but he was the type of player who needed a HC who is good with QBs and his play didn't improve until TT brought in MM. Rhodes and Shermy were not the type of coaches a player like Brett needed to bring out the best in him!

Well, throw out the one year under Rhodes, and Favre had just two head coaches over 13 years of his career. That's not too bad.

I agree that many young players need a firm hand as a coach, but should a 10 year vet need the same firm hand? Did Bart Starr require a strong willed HC to continue to bring out the best in him after his career blossomed? Did Unitas or Montana need that? Do Peyton Manning and Tom Brady require the coaches to control them?

By the time Sherman got there, Favre should not have needed controlling. He should have evolved beyond that as a QB.

You have really hit on one of my biggest disappointments in Favre, that even in the late stages of his career he seemed to require a coach that controlled him. For all his ability, his knowledge and recollection, his ability to read defenses, he never became the full extension of the coach on the field because he still needed the coach to control him. Most of the great QBs that I can think of matured out of that as they gained success, and the HC could rely on them to do the right thing at the right time in the way the coach wanted it done. Many Packer fans give Favre a pass for never reaching the highest level of that development stage. I think that prevents him from being considered in the small handful for the very best of all time.

[Gunakor]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.

[Fritz]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

It was in that post that I was expressing my opinion that Starr was a better quarterback than Favre, in my opinion. You did not argue that point at the time; you simply corrected my (mistaken) claim that Starr didn't throw as many interceptions as Favre, in terms of ratio.

I still do think, as I did then, that I'd rather have Starr quarterbacking than Favre. Favre could make something out of nothing, but could and did sometimes throw the ball right into the opposing defense's hands. How oftenm did you hear opposing players say that in preparation for Favre, they had to be ready because every game, Favre was going to sling at least one or two right into the defensive back's or linebacker's hands?

Favre was a wonderful quarterback, really wonderful. Given a choice though between the two, I like Starr better.

[Freak Out]

Florio can go fuck himself.

Who cares that Ryan didn't want him? Nobody wanted him and Favre knew it.

Just play some golf and enjoy it Favre.

[cpk1994]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

[Patler]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

It was in that post that I was expressing my opinion that Starr was a better quarterback than Favre, in my opinion. You did not argue that point at the time; you simply corrected my (mistaken) claim that Starr didn't throw as many interceptions as Favre, in terms of ratio.

I still do think, as I did then, that I'd rather have Starr quarterbacking than Favre. Favre could make something out of nothing, but could and did sometimes throw the ball right into the opposing defense's hands. How oftenm did you hear opposing players say that in preparation for Favre, they had to be ready because every game, Favre was going to sling at least one or two right into the defensive back's or linebacker's hands?

Favre was a wonderful quarterback, really wonderful. Given a choice though between the two, I like Starr better.

Oh, could be. I sometimes am inclined to get a bit nit-picky. :oops:

I thought you were suggesting that I argued Favre to be my preferred quarterback. I think I have been fairly consistent in arguing that I prefer Bart Starr. As you said, Favre could make something out of nothing. Unfortunately, too often in his later career, during the playoffs he made nothing out of something.

If I had free choice of a QB, not just a Packer QB, I might just take Joe Montana. Also could make something out of nothing, but also didn't make as many killer mistakes as Favre in the playoffs.

[Gunakor]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

They should check thier facts, it was God who told Reggie to come to Green Bay. Favre was still a raw, undisciplined, sandlot QB when Reggie was signed. Not nearly a big enough figure just yet to lure the biggest FA in the history of FA to our small town. But God, on the other hand...

[Patler]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

... and without Wolf, they don't get Favre.

[hoosier]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

But without Anthony Smith the Packers don't get Favre, so Anthony Smith is the real answer. Who is Anthony Smith?

[Zool]

But without Anthony Smith the Packers don't get Favre, so Anthony Smith is the real answer. Who is Anthony Smith?

The guy the Falcons took with the Favre pick 19th overall.

Notable picks later in the 1st that same year:

20 - Dale Carter
22 - Alonzo Spellman
26 - Robert Porcher
27 - John Fina


Early in the 2nd
31 - Carl Pickens
36 - Jimmy Smith
37 - Darren Woodson
38 - Levon Kirkland

[Fritz]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

It was in that post that I was expressing my opinion that Starr was a better quarterback than Favre, in my opinion. You did not argue that point at the time; you simply corrected my (mistaken) claim that Starr didn't throw as many interceptions as Favre, in terms of ratio.

I still do think, as I did then, that I'd rather have Starr quarterbacking than Favre. Favre could make something out of nothing, but could and did sometimes throw the ball right into the opposing defense's hands. How oftenm did you hear opposing players say that in preparation for Favre, they had to be ready because every game, Favre was going to sling at least one or two right into the defensive back's or linebacker's hands?

Favre was a wonderful quarterback, really wonderful. Given a choice though between the two, I like Starr better.

Oh, could be. I sometimes am inclined to get a bit nit-picky. :oops:

I thought you were suggesting that I argued Favre to be my preferred quarterback. I think I have been fairly consistent in arguing that I prefer Bart Starr. As you said, Favre could make something out of nothing. Unfortunately, too often in his later career, during the playoffs he made nothing out of something.

If I had free choice of a QB, not just a Packer QB, I might just take Joe Montana. Also could make something out of nothing, but also didn't make as many killer mistakes as Favre in the playoffs.

Nope. Just proudly recounting the first time I was Patlerized! :lol:

[Tarlam!]

... and without Wolf, they don't get Favre.

Just trading for a player is a little different than earning 3 consecutive MVPs. Wolf also drafted some bums, so Favre was a coin flip, too IMO.

Reggie hit Favre in a Milwaukee game so hard, he wondered if #4 was out for the game. Favre brushed himself off, laughed out loud and complimented Reggie.

It was that moment that Reggie thought the kid was for real. Favre was the difference and is why he chose the Packers.

The resurrection was on well before Reggie got there.

[Patler]

... and without Wolf, they don't get Favre.

Just trading for a player is a little different than earning 3 consecutive MVPs. Wolf also drafted some bums, so Favre was a coin flip, too IMO.

Reggie hit Favre in a Milwaukee game so hard, he wondered if #4 was out for the game. Favre brushed himself off, laughed out loud and complimented Reggie.

It was that moment that Reggie thought the kid was for real. Favre was the difference and is why he chose the Packers.

The resurrection was on well before Reggie got there.

Well, if White wouldn't have come except for Favre, Favre wouldn't even have been here except for Wolf. So who was responsible for resurrecting the franchise? The answer - Don Majkowski!

First, Don Majkowski did rejuvenate the franchise a lot. Exciting player. Pro-Bowler, lead the league in attempts, completions and yardage. Made lots of plays on his own. A fan favorite at the time. Had almosy a cult following of starts. The Majik Man! BUT tended to get injured, in part due to his all-out style of play.

Wolf liked Majkowski, but didn't feel he could be relied on due to injuries, so he went after Favre.

White because of Favre, Favre because of Wolf, Wolf got Favre because of Majkowski, Majkowski started a resurgence of interest in the Packers and lead to Favre, who lead to White.

Yup, all because of Don Majkowski!

[Waldo]

I totally agree about Majik. The Packers were on the upswing prior to Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. Majik had an aura of excitement, Majik to Sterling put the Packers back on the map, and were really the first ones to give fans a buzz. The Majik led Packers is when I first really got interested in the Packers.

It really took me a while to accept that Brett was in fact better than Majik, it took a few MVP's to convince me, and I really am not all that convinced. If Majik had Brett's heath, that guy could have been a force. When heathy, man he could play, his reckless abandon was every bit as fun as Favre to watch.

[Patler]

I totally agree about Majik. The Packers were on the upswing prior to Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. Majik had an aura of excitement, Majik to Sterling put the Packers back on the map, and were really the first ones to give fans a buzz. The Majik led Packers is when I first really got interested in the Packers.

It really took me a while to accept that Brett was in fact better than Majik, it took a few MVP's to convince me, and I really am not all that convinced. If Majik had Brett's heath, that guy could have been a force. When heathy, man he could play, his reckless abandon was every bit as fun as Favre to watch.

Ya, I know what you mean. It was hard letting Majik go and accepting Favre. We knew what Majik could do. He made the Packers an exciting team. As I said in another post, he was Favre before Favre, but not as healthy.

What Majik meant to the franchise is shown by the fact that he was elected to the Packer HOF in spite of playing in less than 70 games as a Packer, and starting less than 50. He brought excitement back to Lambeau Field.

[Gunakor]

Reggie hit Favre in a Milwaukee game so hard, he wondered if #4 was out for the game. Favre brushed himself off, laughed out loud and complimented Reggie.

It was that moment that Reggie thought the kid was for real. Favre was the difference and is why he chose the Packers.

You forgot about God.


White was also known for citing God's will in announcing pivotal career decisions. When he left the Eagles to sign with Green Bay, he claimed God had told him to make the move. And when he came out of brief retirement late in his career, he again attributed the decision to God's instruction.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2006-07-30-forum-white_x.htm

Either Brett Favre is God, or Reggie's a liar? Everything I thought to be true, all this time.... Now I'm bummed. :cry:

[cpk1994]

I totally agree about Majik. The Packers were on the upswing prior to Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. Majik had an aura of excitement, Majik to Sterling put the Packers back on the map, and were really the first ones to give fans a buzz. The Majik led Packers is when I first really got interested in the Packers.

It really took me a while to accept that Brett was in fact better than Majik, it took a few MVP's to convince me, and I really am not all that convinced. If Majik had Brett's heath, that guy could have been a force. When heathy, man he could play, his reckless abandon was every bit as fun as Favre to watch.

Ya, I know what you mean. It was hard letting Majik go and accepting Favre. We knew what Majik could do. He made the Packers an exciting team. As I said in another post, he was Favre before Favre, but not as healthy.

What Majik meant to the franchise is shown by the fact that he was elected to the Packer HOF in spite of playing in less than 70 games as a Packer, and starting less than 50. He brought excitement back to Lambeau Field.Thats a good point. That shoulder injury of his was a killer.

[The Shadow]

But Starr and most other QBs who won multiple SBs had stability at the HC spot. Favre had mediocre HCs after Holgrem left for Seattle. Favre didn't help himself with stupid INTs but he was the type of player who needed a HC who is good with QBs and his play didn't improve until TT brought in MM. Rhodes and Shermy were not the type of coaches a player like Brett needed to bring out the best in him!

Well, throw out the one year under Rhodes, and Favre had just two head coaches over 13 years of his career. That's not too bad.

I agree that many young players need a firm hand as a coach, but should a 10 year vet need the same firm hand? Did Bart Starr require a strong willed HC to continue to bring out the best in him after his career blossomed? Did Unitas or Montana need that? Do Peyton Manning and Tom Brady require the coaches to control them?

By the time Sherman got there, Favre should not have needed controlling. He should have evolved beyond that as a QB.

You have really hit on one of my biggest disappointments in Favre, that even in the late stages of his career he seemed to require a coach that controlled him. For all his ability, his knowledge and recollection, his ability to read defenses, he never became the full extension of the coach on the field because he still needed the coach to control him. Most of the great QBs that I can think of matured out of that as they gained success, and the HC could rely on them to do the right thing at the right time in the way the coach wanted it done. Many Packer fans give Favre a pass for never reaching the highest level of that development stage. I think that prevents him from being considered in the small handful for the very best of all time.


Nicely expressed.

[Packman_26]

I totally agree about Majik. The Packers were on the upswing prior to Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. Majik had an aura of excitement, Majik to Sterling put the Packers back on the map, and were really the first ones to give fans a buzz. The Majik led Packers is when I first really got interested in the Packers.

It really took me a while to accept that Brett was in fact better than Majik, it took a few MVP's to convince me, and I really am not all that convinced. If Majik had Brett's heath, that guy could have been a force. When heathy, man he could play, his reckless abandon was every bit as fun as Favre to watch.
I have been lurking around this board for a while but didn't really post because you usually said nearly exactly what I would have said for me. You and I agree on almost everything.
But I guess this is not one of those times. I can't definately say that Majik wouldn't have been great if he was healthy, but I think I can say that the numbers certainly don't suggest it. Majik had a QB rating over 80 exactly once in his time with the packers and the threw more than 10 TDs once in his career. I'm not saying Majik wasn't a solid QB when healthy, I just can't see even putting him in the same sentence as Favre.
I also have to disagree with the Packers being on the upswing before Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. The three years prior, 89, 90, 91, the records fell from 10-6 to 6-10 to 4-12. Sure Majik and the 1989 Packers brought excitement back to Green Bay, but it surely wasn't on the upswing when Wolf and co. arrived.

[sharpe1027]

I totally agree about Majik. The Packers were on the upswing prior to Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. Majik had an aura of excitement, Majik to Sterling put the Packers back on the map, and were really the first ones to give fans a buzz. The Majik led Packers is when I first really got interested in the Packers.

It really took me a while to accept that Brett was in fact better than Majik, it took a few MVP's to convince me, and I really am not all that convinced. If Majik had Brett's heath, that guy could have been a force. When heathy, man he could play, his reckless abandon was every bit as fun as Favre to watch.

I agree that Majik/Sharpe may have started the turnaround. I disagree that Majik would have been a HoFer. Of course neither of us can prove our beliefs, but from what I remember, he wasn't that great of a passer and he wasn't all that smart with his decisions.

What he was absolutely amazing at was making up for his otherwise average play by completing a 3rd and 30 pass, "Majikly" evading a pass-rusher or scrambling for a first while getting creamed in the process.

IMHO, just like we do for most players, we tend to remember the amazing plays and forget why it was necessary to throw a 3rd and 30 pass in the first place. That's just my observation based upon some pretty old memories. :)

[Waldo]

Did I ever say HOF? I said he could be a force. He wasn't the same guy after he tore up his shoulder (big shocker).

[sharpe1027]

Did I ever say HOF? I said he could be a force. He wasn't the same guy after he tore up his shoulder (big shocker).

You didn't exactly say HoF. In addition to being a force, you said you still weren't convinced that Favre was better than Don. Since Favre is a pretty much assured of being a first ballot HoFer, I naturally assumed as much for Don.

I think the point about the injury affecting him badly and robbing him of his potential stands; I just disagree about what he had shown prior to the injury.

[Patler]

I agree that Majik/Sharpe may have started the turnaround. I disagree that Majik would have been a HoFer. Of course neither of us can prove our beliefs, but from what I remember, he wasn't that great of a passer and he wasn't all that smart with his decisions.

What he was absolutely amazing at was making up for his otherwise average play by completing a 3rd and 30 pass, "Majikly" evading a pass-rusher or scrambling for a first while getting creamed in the process.

IMHO, just like we do for most players, we tend to remember the amazing plays and forget why it was necessary to throw a 3rd and 30 pass in the first place. That's just my observation based upon some pretty old memories. :)

I have no idea whether or not Majik could have made the HOF. Predicting an entire career is difficult. But there are some interesting stats surrounding Majkowski.

Only one time did Majkowski play an entire season of 16 games, 1989. He lead the NFL in passing yardage that year. His yardage total of 4,318 was surpassed by Favre only one time in his long career of playing 16 games year after year after year. He racked up that yardage throwing to a bunch of receivers. He had Sharpe for 1400+ yards, but the next highest was Woodside with just 527 yards. A lot of yards went to a lot of nobodies.

[mraynrand]

I'm not saying Majik wasn't a solid QB when healthy, I just can't see even putting him in the same sentence as Favre.

Warning! Irony Alert!

http://thegreatgeekmanual.com/images/graphical-gags/august/warning-sign.jpg

[Joemailman]

I agree that Majik/Sharpe may have started the turnaround. I disagree that Majik would have been a HoFer. Of course neither of us can prove our beliefs, but from what I remember, he wasn't that great of a passer and he wasn't all that smart with his decisions.

What he was absolutely amazing at was making up for his otherwise average play by completing a 3rd and 30 pass, "Majikly" evading a pass-rusher or scrambling for a first while getting creamed in the process.

IMHO, just like we do for most players, we tend to remember the amazing plays and forget why it was necessary to throw a 3rd and 30 pass in the first place. That's just my observation based upon some pretty old memories. :)

I have no idea whether or not Majik could have made the HOF. Predicting an entire career is difficult. But there are some interesting stats surrounding Majkowski.

Only one time did Majkowski play an entire season of 16 games, 1989. He lead the NFL in passing yardage that year. His yardage total of 4,318 was surpassed by Favre only one time in his long career of playing 16 games year after year after year. He racked up that yardage throwing to a bunch of receivers. He had Sharpe for 1400+ yards, but the next highest was Woodside with just 527 yards. A lot of yards went to a lot of nobodies.

Majik's 1989 season seemed...well.. magical compared to what he had been used to from Packer quarterbacks. But for Favre, that would have been just another season. Favre had 11 seasons out of 16 in Green Bay with a higher QB rating than Majik's 82.3 in 1989. Majik had an exciting season in 1989, but it was not really comparable to the best of Favre.

[Packman_26]

I'm not saying Majik wasn't a solid QB when healthy, I just can't see even putting him in the same sentence as Favre.

Warning! Irony Alert!

http://thegreatgeekmanual.com/images/graphical-gags/august/warning-sign.jpg
Did I do that? oh well. Who is John Galt? :wink:

[GrnBay007]

I think there may be many spoiled Packer fans out there.

To sit there and compare him to other "greats" and being "up there with other greats" and still criticize but not give him credit is just wrong. Pick him apart all you want but I'll be shocked if we ever see another GB QB do what BF did for GB, especially considering his longevity.

[Partial]

There probably won't ever be another HOF packer quarterback. At least in our lives. I mean how rare is it that some people here have seen two HOF qbs. How many fans of other teams can say that besides the Niners?

Not many.

Favre was da man. He deserves way better than the way this board thinks of him. He has done a lot for the state of Wisconsin.

[Lurker64]

Pick him apart all you want but I'll be shocked if we ever see another GB QB do what BF did for GB, especially considering his longevity.

Depends on how you want to guage "what BF did for GB". If you mean "win one championship", we'll probably see that. If you mean "break all major QB records", we probably won't. If you mean, "get the Packers on national TV a lot", we'll probably see that particularly when we become a championship calibre team again.

I mean, before the Pats won a superbowl, Tom Brady was just Drew Bledsoe's injury replacement, a lot of time "success makes superstars" and not the other way around.

[Tarlam!]

He deserves way better than the way this board thinks of him. He has done a lot for the state of Wisconsin.

Maybe, but the kick in the pants he got and is still getting is, IMO, a direct result of the scandal he caused last season and to an extent, his drama queen antics in previous seasons.

I recognize all the positives. His INT record I could care less about,but I refuse to give him a free pass on the negatives off of the field.

[Patler]

He has done a lot for the state of Wisconsin.

I'm not saying he did nothing, but "a lot"???????

People attach much too much significance to what effect these entertainers really have. All of them, whether football players, baseball players, actors, musical performers or what have you.

[Partial]

Think about all the money in sales tax alone this guy has brought in...

[Lurker64]

Think about all the money in sales tax alone this guy has brought in...

Do you really think that it was much? Every Packer game is going to get sold out anyway, the Packers are going to sell a bunch of jerseys no matter who the quarterback is, and people aren't really going to spend more money because they have a popular sports team or player; studies have shown that people generally just have a set budget for leisure things, and when people don't spend money on sports and sports paraphernalia they spend it on other things, like movies and vacations, etc.

In theory, you could claim that Favre brought in a lot of people from outside of Wisconsin in order to see him/report on him etc., but I would wager that the vast majority of Packers tickets are in fact, purchased by Wisconsinites, and there's a national media of fairly steady size at every NFL game these days, whether it's Lions v. Bengals or Pats v. Colts.

Is there something I'm missing?

[Partial]

Yes.. you don't have any numbers to back up any claims. I own a favre jersey. I wouldn't own two jersey's if it wasn't for Favre. I'd only have my Hawk jersey.

So, thats 3 bucks from me.

How many people do you think there are?!? Probably a lot over 17 years.

What about local businesses? Brett Favre steakhouse, advertising for local companies, charities, etc.

Dude has done a lot of good!

[Patler]

There probably won't ever be another HOF packer quarterback. At least in our lives. I mean how rare is it that some people here have seen two HOF qbs. How many fans of other teams can say that besides the Niners?


How many? Quite a few, actually. Besides the Packers and 49ers, there are:

Cowboys - Staubach & Aikman
Dolphins - Griese & Marino
Rams - Waterfield & Van Brocklin
Colts - Unitas & Manning (You can argue the Baltimore/Indy thing if you want)
Steelers - Bobby Lane (last 5 seasons), Bradshaw, maybe Roethlisberger.

Other than the Rams, all within the same general time period as the Packers. The Rams saw two in a short period of time, but much longer ago.

[Patler]

Yes.. you don't have any numbers to back up any claims. I own a favre jersey. I wouldn't own two jersey's if it wasn't for Favre. I'd only have my Hawk jersey.

So, thats 3 bucks from me.

How many people do you think there are?!? Probably a lot over 17 years.

What about local businesses? Brett Favre steakhouse, advertising for local companies, charities, etc.

Dude has done a lot of good!

Some things yes, but small potatoes, really. Think about all the thousands of small business owners all over the state who each employ many more people than Favre's few enterprises in WI, who have run those businesses for 20, 30 years or even generations.

Favre had his impact in WI, sure, but be realistic about how significant it is in respect to the overall business in the state.

[Lurker64]

Yes.. you don't have any numbers to back up any claims. I own a favre jersey. I wouldn't own two jersey's if it wasn't for Favre. I'd only have my Hawk jersey.

So, thats 3 bucks from me.

How many people do you think there are?!? Probably a lot over 17 years.

What about local businesses? Brett Favre steakhouse, advertising for local companies, charities, etc.

Dude has done a lot of good!

I own a Don Beebe jersey, a Travis Jervey jersey, and a Rob Davis jersey. Those men have done quite a bit of good for the State of Wisconsin. But the real question is "would I have spent that money anyway, if I hadn't spent it on jerseys?" and the answer is definitely yes. I would have bought concert tickets, or new shoes, or gone to see a bunch of movies, or something.

The thing about the Brett Favre steakhouse, is how often do you suppose people would eat there instead of not-eating? How about instead of "not-eating at home"? Generally, people don't decide to go out because a restaurant exists, they go out because they want to go out and choose between restaurants they own. Advertising? Well, those local companies gave Wisconsin dollars to Brett Favre who likely took them back to Mississippi. But if you're saying "Brett Favre's endorsement got people to buy whatever it was" that's quite possibly true, but the question is "did they spend money that they would not otherwise have spent due to Brett's endorsement" which is possible, but personally I've never bought anything simply because it was endorsed by a celebrity, but I'm possibly exceptional.

Brett Favre's charity work is something he should be commended for, but not really any more than anybody else who does a similar amount of good.

[Patler]

Brett Favre's charity work is something he should be commended for, but not really any more than anybody else who does a similar amount of good.

Absolutely. His work with the "Make a Wish" Foundation should be noted particularly. He seems to have been exceptionally accommodating to them, and I am sure it meant a tremendous amount to the kids and families that met him. But even that has to be considered in perspective, and compared to the nameless, faceless volunteers in our communities who spend multiple hours each week all year long giving their time and money for their own expenses to Big Brothers/Big Sisters, various after school and children at risk programs, etc.

[sharpe1027]

I have no idea whether or not Majik could have made the HOF. Predicting an entire career is difficult. But there are some interesting stats surrounding Majkowski.

Only one time did Majkowski play an entire season of 16 games, 1989. He lead the NFL in passing yardage that year. His yardage total of 4,318 was surpassed by Favre only one time in his long career of playing 16 games year after year after year. He racked up that yardage throwing to a bunch of receivers. He had Sharpe for 1400+ yards, but the next highest was Woodside with just 527 yards. A lot of yards went to a lot of nobodies.

Well, he "could made" the HoF. It is, after all, just a hypothetical. What I think, though, is that it would have been very unlikely. First, we can probably agree that it is possible to compile a long list of one year success stories. Second, while he was very successful that one year with little help from the running game and only one great WR, he got all those yards because all they did was throw the ball. I think many people would agree that even for that one year he was not the best QB in the NFL; he just threw the ball more.

[Patler]

I have no idea whether or not Majik could have made the HOF. Predicting an entire career is difficult. But there are some interesting stats surrounding Majkowski.

Only one time did Majkowski play an entire season of 16 games, 1989. He lead the NFL in passing yardage that year. His yardage total of 4,318 was surpassed by Favre only one time in his long career of playing 16 games year after year after year. He racked up that yardage throwing to a bunch of receivers. He had Sharpe for 1400+ yards, but the next highest was Woodside with just 527 yards. A lot of yards went to a lot of nobodies.

Well, he "could made" the HoF. It is, after all, just a hypothetical. What I think, though, is that it would have been very unlikely. First, we can probably agree that it is possible to compile a long list of one year success stories. Second, while he was very successful that one year with little help from the running game and only one great WR, he got all those yards because all they did was throw the ball. I think many people would agree that even for that one year he was not the best QB in the NFL; he just threw the ball more.

He threw the ball more, completed the ball more and made the Pro-Bowl. He was pretty darn good that year. Favre had two seasons in which he threw the ball more than Majkowski did in '89, and in one of those seasons he completed significantly fewer than Majkowski did in '89. In neither of the seasons in which he attempted more passes than Majkowski did in '89, did Favre have as many yards as Majkowski did in '89. You also have to remember that in '89 Majkowski was just a third year player in his first season as the fulltime starter. How he might have grown or developed is anyone's guess

Unfortunately, '89 was the last time that Majkowski played with any kind of decent health. I'm not suggesting that he could have maintained the level of performance he had in '89, it would be just a guess to say that he would have. But his play in '89 looked legitimate, not like a fluke. He had confidence in himself, and the team had confidence in him. I thought Majkowski had a much more dynamic performance in '89 than Rodgers did last season, and not just based on Majkowski's comeback performances that year. It was an attitude that the team had with him in there.

[mraynrand]

Majkowski .... How he might have grown or developed is anyone's guess

That's about all you can say about it.

Plus, given the choice between starting Brett Favre or Bart Starr at QB at the peak of their respective games, I would take Brett Favre without thinking twice about it. So would Bart Starr.

[sharpe1027]

He threw the ball more, completed the ball more and made the Pro-Bowl. He was pretty darn good that year. Favre had two seasons in which he threw the ball more than Majkowski did in '89, and in one of those seasons he completed significantly fewer than Majkowski did in '89. In neither of the seasons in which he attempted more passes than Majkowski did in '89, did Favre have as many yards as Majkowski did in '89. You also have to remember that in '89 Majkowski was just a third year player in his first season as the fulltime starter. How he might have grown or developed is anyone's guess

Unfortunately, '89 was the last time that Majkowski played with any kind of decent health. I'm not suggesting that he could have maintained the level of performance he had in '89, it would be just a guess to say that he would have. But his play in '89 looked legitimate, not like a fluke. He had confidence in himself, and the team had confidence in him. I thought Majkowski had a much more dynamic performance in '89 than Rodgers did last season, and not just based on Majkowski's comeback performances that year. It was an attitude that the team had with him in there.

- Was his season good? Yes

- Was it dynamic? Aboslutely.

- Does he stack up against Favres numbers? You point to Favre's yards/attempt, but seem to overlook all other indicators. You try to discredit Don's high volume of throws by comparing him to a few of Favre's seasons. However, it is interesting that in his big year Don wasn't even in the top ten in yards/att. He threw almost 49 more passes than the next closest QB that year. He was third in TDs, but also third in INTs. He was sacked second most of any QB. I am not sure how much to blame on him and how much on the O-line, but I think his style of play did lead to more sacks. His passer rating was 82, and was 8th in the league. Overall, he had a good year, but, IMHO, the jury was still out on him. Looking at all of the information, it is entirely reasonable to believe that he could have gone either way after that season...and history tells us which way he did in fact go.

- Was his one season a fluke? No way to be sure. His injury provides an excuse, but was it really the main problem? Did he lose velocity on this throws? I do not recall anyone saying it did. Did he lose accuracy? I guess you could say he did, but he wasn't exactly known for pin-point accuracy. You seem to imply that his one season suggests he was the real deal. You point to his yards per attempt and an attitude of the team. I agree that those are positive indicators (although his yards per attempt were not that outstanding); however, he was given his chances and not just with the Packers. You don't seem to factor in the rest of his career and even the rest of his stats that year. I can't say that his injury didn't ruin his career, but I think there is plenty of reasons to believe that the same result may have occurred even without the injury. It makes us feel good to provide an excuse for a guy that gave us his all and that provided us with one of the most memorable seasons ever. Being totally honest, however, I think his injury was only a part of the reason he never had the same success again.

- Does comparing him to Rodgers mean anything in the context of our discussion? Not that I can tell.

[Waldo]

The big difference was that Rodgers took over a team used to winning. Don took over a team that hadn't done much in two decades. He represented hope at the QB position, something the team hadn't seen in a very long time. Dickey flashed a little too, but that very long ago by that point. Rodgers wasn't much more than changing a tire on the car, not much really changed.

[sharpe1027]

The big difference was that Rodgers took over a team used to winning. Don took over a team that hadn't done much in two decades. He represented hope at the QB position, something the team hadn't seen in a very long time. Dickey flashed a little too, but that very long ago by that point. Rodgers wasn't much more than changing a tire on the car, not much really changed.

Was this directed at me? If so, I don't understand the comparisons to Rodgers. I suspect that Rodgers will never be a HoF QB. He could be, but the odds are long, about the same as they were for Don.

From my recollection of 1989, Don had a lot of Majik that year, but was often part of the reason that the Majik was needed. I just don't share your belief that he might have been as good as Favre without the injury. Anything is possible, but IMO, it is just too convenient of an excuse. This was a guy that provided wins and excitement for a fan base that was starving for anything positive. It is a fond memory for Packer fnas, which is why it is easier to blame an injury to avoid casting doubt on the Majik of that year.

[Waldo]

Perhaps you also misunderstand, I don't think that Favre was that good to begin with. He had a 3 year run where he was real good, prior to that and after that he was loved more for the way he acted when he played the game, than his actual on field performance.

[Patler]

Plus, given the choice between starting Brett Favre or Bart Starr at QB at the peak of their respective games, I would take Brett Favre without thinking twice about it. So would Bart Starr.

In part perhaps because Bart Starr is one of the most humble pro athletes you may ever meet.

[sharpe1027]

Perhaps you also misunderstand, I don't think that Favre was that good to begin with. He had a 3 year run where he was real good, prior to that and after that he was loved more for the way he acted when he played the game, than his actual on field performance.

No, I did not understand. I did not realize that you were actually saying Favre was not that good, rather than trying to say Majik was good. I guess your original statement could be taken either way, but I honestly think you had more credibility with the former position.

I think you understate how good Favre was for 3 years and then use that to skew how good/bad he was in other years. Your personal rating system aside, Favre will be a first ballot HoFer. There is an element of popularity to it, but I am pretty sure that there will be a resounding consensus from people who know their sports. I don't feel the need to debate whether or not he was that good to begin with. I am sure that you have your reasons and I am sure that they have a logical basis. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Fritz]

Since someone threw out Majkowski's name, let me share another name - one who has been one of my favorite GB QB's of the last thirty years: Lynn Dickey. He had only one 4,000 yard season ('83) and led his team to only one playoff appearance ('82), but despite these meager stats and his immobility he was one of my favorites.

If you look at his stats, he doesn't seem terribly impressive, but he had a rocket arm and was a smart QB. Starr actually built a nice offense that playoff year and the next - unfortunately, his defenses were like sluts - everybody scored! I'll never forget that damn Dallas playoff game in '82. Dickey would throw a T.D. pass to Lofton or Jefferson or whoever it was, maybe Coffman was the T.E. back then, I don't quite recall - but then Dallas would go down the field like there was no defense there at all. It was awful.

But I always liked Dickey. I think he was a better QB than Majik, though not in Starr's or Favre's league. In his defense, though, he was in the top ten in number of times sacked about five or six times in his Packer career - though that may also have been partly due to his immobility.

I just liked Lynn Dickey, though. Gutsy guy. Good arm, smart.

[Patler]

Majkowski .... How he might have grown or developed is anyone's guess

That's about all you can say about it.


That's about all I DID say about it.

[Patler]

Since someone threw out Majkowski's name, let me share another name - one who has been one of my favorite GB QB's of the last thirty years: Lynn Dickey. He had only one 4,000 yard season ('83) and led his team to only one playoff appearance ('82), but despite these meager stats and his immobility he was one of my favorites.

If you look at his stats, he doesn't seem terribly impressive, but he had a rocket arm and was a smart QB. Starr actually built a nice offense that playoff year and the next - unfortunately, his defenses were like sluts - everybody scored! I'll never forget that damn Dallas playoff game in '82. Dickey would throw a T.D. pass to Lofton or Jefferson or whoever it was, maybe Coffman was the T.E. back then, I don't quite recall - but then Dallas would go down the field like there was no defense there at all. It was awful.

But I always liked Dickey. I think he was a better QB than Majik, though not in Starr's or Favre's league. In his defense, though, he was in the top ten in number of times sacked about five or six times in his Packer career - though that may also have been partly due to his immobility.

I just liked Lynn Dickey, though. Gutsy guy. Good arm, smart.

I liked Dickey too. A real "old school" QB who would stand there, make the throw without so much as a flinch, and then get absolutely annihilated by lineman who were allowed to "follow through" and hit the QB long after he released. Dickey had enough mobility to drop straight back, that was about it. The D-line knew exactly where to find him!

He was a tough son-of-gun.

[Fritz]

I think some of his immobility came from leg injuries suffered in Houston early on in his career.

It was a different day - you could roll right into the QB, you could slam his after he'd released - had he played today, with these rules protecting the QB, he might've had much better stats.

He threw his share of interceptions, too, but again, he stood in the pocket a long time and if I recall correctly early in his Packer career he didn't have too many receivers to throw to - until Lofton showed up, I think.

[mraynrand]

Lynn Dickey threw a beautiful deep ball. He was an accurate passer in my recollection. I'll never forget some of those great games of '83 - the victory over the Redskins, the loss to Atlanta in OT. Absolute shootouts because Dickey that year with Jefferson, Coffman, and Lofton could score on any play - AND YOU KNEW THAT SCHNELKER WOULD CALL THE REVERSE TO LOFTON!!!

[Merlin]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

I much prefer nice old boring championships.

I really only remember the last 17 years or so really well (Favre era) and I haven't seen many of those in GB over the last couple decades. I'd be happy as hell to win some good, old fashioned, boring championships. Hopefully Rodgers brings some consistent (not game losing INT) football.

This is just ridiculous. Rodgers already cost us games, he threw a game ending int, get over yourself already. We get it, you think the entire Favre era sucked and the Packers were never a good team with Favre, but magically now without him we are the bomb. You need a strong dose of reality, starting with your horrible nickname.

[Partial]

LOL, JustinHarrell you're such a joke. It's almost comical. Game losing interceptions and inconsistent play?!? Well, so far we've taken a top 4 team with that shitty QB and took away him, and an evidently "Average" DT according to the people on the board and suddenly we were bottom of the barrel, one of the worst teams in the NFL.

Imagine how poor our record would have been if we weren't in a division with the all-time worst team. We'd probably be 5-11 at best in any other division in the NFL. Playing in a competitive division we'd look like Detroit..

From your love on Hawkins, to Davis, to James Hardy, to now Everette Brown, you've shown time and time again your ability to grade and rate a football player is a little off to say the least.

[Lurker64]

From your love on Hawkins, to Davis, to James Hardy, to now Everette Brown, you've shown time and time again your ability to grade and rate a football player is a little off to say the least.

Now, there's nothing wrong with the pot calling the kettle black if it is, in fact, black (and it is), but I just have two words to say here: Vince Young.

Everybody is wrong about their evaluations of players, here or there, and even frequently. JH is, I am, you are, we all are. Professional talent evaluators are as well, based on the fact that "busts in the draft exist". But "you were wrong about x" isn't necessarily an indictment about your opinions on z, y, and w.

[Partial]

uh... Vince Young has taken a shitty team to the playoffs. The jury is far from out of VY. Dude has accomplished plenty of things that a fair amount of quarterbacks never do.

[Lurker64]

uh... Vince Young has taken a shitty team to the playoffs.

Coincidentally, the same shitty team that Kerry Collins guided to home field advantage throughout the playoffs...

[Partial]

What a surprised that a team picking 3rd in the draft, had a decent first year with Young as a starter, then went to the playoffs, then went to the playoffs again the next year. It's called young players growing.

I don't think anyone can deny that he has had success as the starting quarterback of the team.

Anyway, this thread is about Favre, and the comment was about how JustinHarrell has no idea what the F he is talking about in his assessment of Favre.

Stupid interceptions? I guess Elway must have been a dumb quarterback as well. Elway only won two super bowls compared to one. I don't see that as a huge difference either.

Peyton Manning must be known for dumb interceptions too, since he pass to int ratio is great, just like Favres. He also must be a horrible quarterback since he only won one superbowl, like Favre.

You're assessment is a biased joke, Harrell.

[Bossman641]

uh... Vince Young has taken a shitty team to the playoffs. The jury is far from out of VY. Dude has accomplished plenty of things that a fair amount of quarterbacks never do.

MUST RESIST URGE TO GET SUCKED INTO PARTIAL'S STUPID VINCE YOUNG ARGUMENTS AGAIN.

[Freak Out]

Since someone threw out Majkowski's name, let me share another name - one who has been one of my favorite GB QB's of the last thirty years: Lynn Dickey. He had only one 4,000 yard season ('83) and led his team to only one playoff appearance ('82), but despite these meager stats and his immobility he was one of my favorites.

If you look at his stats, he doesn't seem terribly impressive, but he had a rocket arm and was a smart QB. Starr actually built a nice offense that playoff year and the next - unfortunately, his defenses were like sluts - everybody scored! I'll never forget that damn Dallas playoff game in '82. Dickey would throw a T.D. pass to Lofton or Jefferson or whoever it was, maybe Coffman was the T.E. back then, I don't quite recall - but then Dallas would go down the field like there was no defense there at all. It was awful.

But I always liked Dickey. I think he was a better QB than Majik, though not in Starr's or Favre's league. In his defense, though, he was in the top ten in number of times sacked about five or six times in his Packer career - though that may also have been partly due to his immobility.

I just liked Lynn Dickey, though. Gutsy guy. Good arm, smart.

I loved watching Dickey and the Packers...with a half assed D he would have taken them to the Playoffs every year....that is if he was still standing. :lol:

One of my favorite games was the MNF game against Denver when we lost two fumbles in the first 14 seconds and still almost won.

[AtlPackFan]

Since someone threw out Majkowski's name, let me share another name - one who has been one of my favorite GB QB's of the last thirty years: Lynn Dickey. He had only one 4,000 yard season ('83) and led his team to only one playoff appearance ('82), but despite these meager stats and his immobility he was one of my favorites.

If you look at his stats, he doesn't seem terribly impressive, but he had a rocket arm and was a smart QB. Starr actually built a nice offense that playoff year and the next - unfortunately, his defenses were like sluts - everybody scored! I'll never forget that damn Dallas playoff game in '82. Dickey would throw a T.D. pass to Lofton or Jefferson or whoever it was, maybe Coffman was the T.E. back then, I don't quite recall - but then Dallas would go down the field like there was no defense there at all. It was awful.

But I always liked Dickey. I think he was a better QB than Majik, though not in Starr's or Favre's league. In his defense, though, he was in the top ten in number of times sacked about five or six times in his Packer career - though that may also have been partly due to his immobility.

I just liked Lynn Dickey, though. Gutsy guy. Good arm, smart.

I loved watching Dickey and the Packers...with a half assed D he would have taken them to the Playoffs every year....that is if he was still standing. :lol:

One of my favorite games was the MNF game against Denver when we lost two fumbles in the first 14 seconds and still almost won.

If I remember correctly, they didn't have much of a running game back then either.

[Freak Out]

Since someone threw out Majkowski's name, let me share another name - one who has been one of my favorite GB QB's of the last thirty years: Lynn Dickey. He had only one 4,000 yard season ('83) and led his team to only one playoff appearance ('82), but despite these meager stats and his immobility he was one of my favorites.

If you look at his stats, he doesn't seem terribly impressive, but he had a rocket arm and was a smart QB. Starr actually built a nice offense that playoff year and the next - unfortunately, his defenses were like sluts - everybody scored! I'll never forget that damn Dallas playoff game in '82. Dickey would throw a T.D. pass to Lofton or Jefferson or whoever it was, maybe Coffman was the T.E. back then, I don't quite recall - but then Dallas would go down the field like there was no defense there at all. It was awful.

But I always liked Dickey. I think he was a better QB than Majik, though not in Starr's or Favre's league. In his defense, though, he was in the top ten in number of times sacked about five or six times in his Packer career - though that may also have been partly due to his immobility.

I just liked Lynn Dickey, though. Gutsy guy. Good arm, smart.

I loved watching Dickey and the Packers...with a half assed D he would have taken them to the Playoffs every year....that is if he was still standing. :lol:

One of my favorite games was the MNF game against Denver when we lost two fumbles in the first 14 seconds and still almost won.

If I remember correctly, they didn't have much of a running game back then either.

I don't think it was that bad...good enough to compliment the passing game effectively...but the D sure stunk. Ellis and Ivery did fine in tandem.

[Freak Out]

Didn't Harlan Huckleby play then as well?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The big difference was that Rodgers took over a team used to winning. Don took over a team that hadn't done much in two decades. He represented hope at the QB position, something the team hadn't seen in a very long time. Dickey flashed a little too, but that very long ago by that point. Rodgers wasn't much more than changing a tire on the car, not much really changed.


Took over a team used to winning? The team Arod took over was a young team...that was by no means use to winning. Most of the line..not used to winning. Tight end..not use to winning. WRs with the exception of DD..not use to winning. Running backs...not use to winning...some not even in college.

But, what about the organization...had TT experienced winning here. No. MM certainly wasn't use to winning/success as a coach in GB or ANYWHERE else.

Simply putting on the green and gold doesn't make you used to success...if that was the case we should kicked ass during the 70s and 80s.

You have a very interesting take. If you want to argue that there were attitudinal or institutional inherencies that is one thing. But, the simple fact is that while the pack wasn't very good prior to Majik..they were at least average..as evidenced by their 5 consecutive years of 500 or slightly better from 81-85.

To make a comparison of Arod to a tire is absurd. If the packers are the car..then arod like brett is the driver. Tires are relatively simple pieces of equipment..and by experience, finding a new tire for an NFL franchise isn't as simple as going to discount tire or looking for a used tire.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Lynn Dickey threw a beautiful deep ball. He was an accurate passer in my recollection. I'll never forget some of those great games of '83 - the victory over the Redskins, the loss to Atlanta in OT. Absolute shootouts because Dickey that year with Jefferson, Coffman, and Lofton could score on any play - AND YOU KNEW THAT SCHNELKER WOULD CALL THE REVERSE TO LOFTON!!!

The reverse was a key component of our "high tech" offense.

It is kinda sad that i can look back fondly at Schnelker....that just proves how bad our previous offensive coordinators were.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Didn't Harlan Huckleby play then as well?

Yep, along with a boy named Vickey!

[cpk1994]

What a surprised that a team picking 3rd in the draft, had a decent first year with Young as a starter, then went to the playoffs, then went to the playoffs again the next year. It's called young players growing.

I don't think anyone can deny that he has had success as the starting quarterback of the team.


I find it hypocritical that you use this argument about Young while passing absolute judgement on Rodgers.



Anyway, this thread is about Favre, and the comment was about how JustinHarrell has no idea what the F he is talking about in his assessment of Favre.

Stupid interceptions? I guess Elway must have been a dumb quarterback as well. Elway only won two super bowls compared to one. I don't see that as a huge difference either.

Peyton Manning must be known for dumb interceptions too, since he pass to int ratio is great, just like Favres. He also must be a horrible quarterback since he only won one superbowl, like Favre.

You're assessment is a biased joke, Harrell.Coming from someone who has biased arguments against Rodgers, talk about pot calling kettle.

[prsnfoto]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Easily the most stupid poster in this forum, let us all know how Sal Pal's ass is the next time you go there, second thought don't you've made me sick enough today. MORON!!!!

[KYPack]

Imagine how poor our record would have been if we weren't in a division with the all-time worst team. We'd probably be 5-11 at best in any other division in the NFL. Playing in a competitive division we'd look like Detroit..



We may well have won the West in either conference. Seeing as the NFC's rep in the SB was from the West, maybe we were a Super Bowl team in disguise!

[Partial]

What a surprised that a team picking 3rd in the draft, had a decent first year with Young as a starter, then went to the playoffs, then went to the playoffs again the next year. It's called young players growing.

I don't think anyone can deny that he has had success as the starting quarterback of the team.


I find it hypocritical that you use this argument about Young while passing absolute judgement on Rodgers.

Rodgers took a team with ample young talent that was championship caliber last year, and took them nowhere. The Titans improved over 3 years. The Packers did their improvement over two years, than massively regressed.

As for young players, Rodgers is entering his 5th year. Not exactly a young player.

As Cassell showed us this year, spending time in the NFL learning from the sidelines and molding your body is just as important as starting time. Rodgers probably is what he is.

[/quote]

Anyway, this thread is about Favre, and the comment was about how JustinHarrell has no idea what the F he is talking about in his assessment of Favre.

Stupid interceptions? I guess Elway must have been a dumb quarterback as well. Elway only won two super bowls compared to one. I don't see that as a huge difference either.

Peyton Manning must be known for dumb interceptions too, since he pass to int ratio is great, just like Favres. He also must be a horrible quarterback since he only won one superbowl, like Favre.

You're assessment is a biased joke, Harrell.Coming from someone who has biased arguments against Rodgers, talk about pot calling kettle.[/quote]

???

I am extremely fair in my assessment of Rodgers, far more so than most here. He's an average QB right now. Maybe slightly above average. By my assessment, if I'm looking to win a game today, there are 12 guys I'm putting on my time above him. Thats squarely in the average zone.

Rodgers was not a second half quarterback last year, and it showed. He threw several picks in crunch time, but most importantly, he failed to sustain drives in the second half of games despite immense talent.

Some games he was great. Many games he was okay. Some games we was piss poor. He's extremely inconsistent, which is why its ironic that Harrell would make an assessment like he has.

Consistency is king in the NFL, and until Rodgers moves his truly awful games to the average tier, he'll never be more than what he is. NFL teams need touchdowns to score, and he had 3 games last year where simply having an average day would have been enough to get the job done.

[Bossman641]

Partial,

Two quick questions

Where do you place the blame for last year's record? I want it broken down only between offense, defense, and special teams (i.e. 33%, 33%, 33%) with coaching taken into effect.

You really think Rodgers is what he is? And will only marginally improve, if at all?

[Partial]

There isn't a number for something like that. The offense was really abyssmal in the Tenn, Minne, Jax section of the season. All three of those games were horrendous offensively.

There were some horrendous defensive and special teams performances as well.

Yes, Rodger is what he is imo. What would lead anyone to believe that he isn't? He's not a young kid anymore. He was definitely better earlier in the year before teams had tape on him. Once they had enough content to watch and grab his tendencies from, he wasn't nearly as effective.

Physically, he'll get a little better. Defenses are going to get smarter and have more tape to study of him and that will probably be neutralized as a result.

[Bossman641]

There isn't a number for something like that. The offense was really abyssmal in the Tenn, Minne, Jax section of the season. All three of those games were horrendous offensively.

There were some horrendous defensive and special teams performances as well.

Please just try. Because based on how you go on and on about Rodgers and the offense you would lead me to believe yours is about 60, 20, 20 (O, D, ST)


Yes, Rodger is what he is imo. What would lead anyone to believe that he isn't?

The fact that he was a first-time starter, will have better recognition skills, probably will make better pre-snap reads, and will have past experience to fall back on. That's generally how it works.


He's not a young kid anymore. He was definitely better earlier in the year before teams had tape on him. Once they had enough content to watch and grab his tendencies from, he wasn't nearly as effective.

Based on what? Partial's imaginary grading scale? I suggest you pull up a game-log and look at the last 4-5 games of the year.


Physically, he'll get a little better. Defenses are going to get smarter and have more tape to study of him and that will probably be neutralized as a result.

Defenses will have more to go off. Rodgers will also have more to go off.

[Patler]

Yes, Rodger is what he is imo. What would lead anyone to believe that he isn't? He's not a young kid anymore.

Just curious, are you aware of the fact that Rodgers is younger than Cutler?

[Patler]

Yes, Rodger is what he is imo. What would lead anyone to believe that he isn't? He's not a young kid anymore.

Just curious, are you aware of the fact that Rodgers is younger than Cutler?

Just to follow up on that with a few more comparisons:

Rodgers is also 2 years younger than Jason Campbell and Phillip Rivers, a year+ younger than Cassel & Orton, and younger than Dereck Anderson, Kellen Clemens and Tarvaris Jackson. He is less than a year older than Brady Quinn, only a year older than Flacco, and a year and a half older than Matt Ryan.

Are there no young QBs in the NFL???

[cpk1994]

Physically, he'll get a little better. Defenses are going to get smarter and have more tape to study of him and that will probably be neutralized as a result.So you are saying that Rodgers isn't capable of getting smarter and have more to go off of? If you are, it proves once and for all that you hate Rodgers ands are extremely biased against Rodgers. Also, using "Rodgers is average becuase I say so" argument even though most all offensivce categories show Rodgers to be in the top 10 shows your ignorance very clearly.

[Partial]

You're telling me 4 years in a system isn't enough to learn the nooks and crannies of it? He's not new to the position he's playing. He's been doing it regularly for 4+ years now.

The defense has a 1 year of footage on him.

1 < 4

Offensive Categories: Who cares? The Packers have a boat load of offensive talent. Remember the year before when Brett Favre, the guy you all say is so horrible and washed up, was dominating the league. I don't care about Rodgers stats. Of course they're good. Trent Dilfer could put up those same numbers with the talent Rodgers has around him. Hell, TMission could.


Patler,

Age has very little to do with it. Experience has everything. Cutler has less experience, more success, etc. While I don't like what he's doing right now, I love his moxy and competitive spirit. On paper, Rodgers looks like the better player imho. On the field, its not even close, and Cutler looks like Jon Elway compared to Jon Kitna. Cutler has what the moxy and attitude of a natural leader.

[mission]

LOL how the hell did this thread make it 7 pages??



Partial?

[Fritz]

Yup.

[Bossman641]

You're telling me 4 years in a system isn't enough to learn the nooks and crannies of it? He's not new to the position he's playing. He's been doing it regularly for 4+ years now.

The defense has a 1 year of footage on him.

1 < 4

Offensive Categories: Who cares? The Packers have a boat load of offensive talent. Remember the year before when Brett Favre, the guy you all say is so horrible and washed up, was dominating the league. I don't care about Rodgers stats. Of course they're good. Trent Dilfer could put up those same numbers with the talent Rodgers has around him. Hell, TMission could.


Patler,

Age has very little to do with it. Experience has everything. Cutler has less experience, more success, etc. While I don't like what he's doing right now, I love his moxy and competitive spirit. On paper, Rodgers looks like the better player imho. On the field, its not even close, and Cutler looks like Jon Elway compared to Jon Kitna. Cutler has what the moxy and attitude of a natural leader.

Interesting. I didn't know being a douchebag was a quality looked for in a leader.

You really don't give up do you. If you can't see that actual playing time and being in there when the bullets are flying is more beneficial than studying the playbook and running the second team in PRACTICE then I give up.

[Patler]

Patler,

Age has very little to do with it. Experience has everything. Cutler has less experience, more success, etc. While I don't like what he's doing right now, I love his moxy and competitive spirit. On paper, Rodgers looks like the better player imho. On the field, its not even close, and Cutler looks like Jon Elway compared to Jon Kitna. Cutler has what the moxy and attitude of a natural leader.

Partial, you were the one who brought up Rodgers' age, not me. You wrote, "He's not a young kid anymore." In fact, he is one of the youngest starters in the NFL, and not much older than the very youngest.

Cutler has less experience? Are you kidding me? Three years in the league, 37 starts in a row, over 1200 attempts is less experienced than four years in the league, 16 starts and less than 600 attempts?

What do you base "experience" on, just being in the league for one more year?

[mission]

Patler,

Age has very little to do with it. Experience has everything. Cutler has less experience, more success, etc. While I don't like what he's doing right now, I love his moxy and competitive spirit. On paper, Rodgers looks like the better player imho. On the field, its not even close, and Cutler looks like Jon Elway compared to Jon Kitna. Cutler has what the moxy and attitude of a natural leader.

Partial, you were the one who brought up Rodgers' age, not me. You wrote, "He's not a young kid anymore." In fact, he is one of the youngest starters in the NFL, and not much older than the very youngest.

Cutler has less experience? Are you kidding me? Three years in the league, 37 starts in a row, over 1200 attempts is less experienced than four years in the league, 16 starts and less than 600 attempts?

What do you base "experience" on, just being in the league for one more year?

Aaaaaaaand there you have it. Thread is done.

Thanks for reading. :arrow:

[Bossman641]

Patler,

Age has very little to do with it. Experience has everything. Cutler has less experience, more success, etc. While I don't like what he's doing right now, I love his moxy and competitive spirit. On paper, Rodgers looks like the better player imho. On the field, its not even close, and Cutler looks like Jon Elway compared to Jon Kitna. Cutler has what the moxy and attitude of a natural leader.

Partial, you were the one who brought up Rodgers' age, not me. You wrote, "He's not a young kid anymore." In fact, he is one of the youngest starters in the NFL, and not much older than the very youngest.

Cutler has less experience? Are you kidding me? Three years in the league, 37 starts in a row, over 1200 attempts is less experienced than four years in the league, 16 starts and less than 600 attempts?

What do you base "experience" on, just being in the league for one more year?

Aaaaaaaand there you have it. Thread is done.

Thanks for reading. :arrow:

This is Partial we're talking about. The thread is never done.

[The Shadow]

TT drafted Rodgers.
Therefore Rodgers is terrible, MUST be terrible. At all costs!
Don't we all get it by now?

[Partial]

You're telling me 4 years in a system isn't enough to learn the nooks and crannies of it? He's not new to the position he's playing. He's been doing it regularly for 4+ years now.

The defense has a 1 year of footage on him.

1 < 4

Offensive Categories: Who cares? The Packers have a boat load of offensive talent. Remember the year before when Brett Favre, the guy you all say is so horrible and washed up, was dominating the league. I don't care about Rodgers stats. Of course they're good. Trent Dilfer could put up those same numbers with the talent Rodgers has around him. Hell, TMission could.


Patler,

Age has very little to do with it. Experience has everything. Cutler has less experience, more success, etc. While I don't like what he's doing right now, I love his moxy and competitive spirit. On paper, Rodgers looks like the better player imho. On the field, its not even close, and Cutler looks like Jon Elway compared to Jon Kitna. Cutler has what the moxy and attitude of a natural leader.

Interesting. I didn't know being a douchebag was a quality looked for in a leader.

You really don't give up do you. If you can't see that actual playing time and being in there when the bullets are flying is more beneficial than studying the playbook and running the second team in PRACTICE then I give up.

I actually don't necessarily think it is. Why is it that so many quarterbacks are better when they sit on the bench? They get to learn without having their confidence shaken. By the time they get in and are starting their 5th season, you have a good idea who they are.

[cpk1994]

You're telling me 4 years in a system isn't enough to learn the nooks and crannies of it? He's not new to the position he's playing. He's been doing it regularly for 4+ years now.

The defense has a 1 year of footage on him.

1 < 4

Offensive Categories: Who cares? The Packers have a boat load of offensive talent. Remember the year before when Brett Favre, the guy you all say is so horrible and washed up, was dominating the league. I don't care about Rodgers stats. Of course they're good. Trent Dilfer could put up those same numbers with the talent Rodgers has around him. Hell, TMission could.


Patler,

Age has very little to do with it. Experience has everything. Cutler has less experience, more success, etc. While I don't like what he's doing right now, I love his moxy and competitive spirit. On paper, Rodgers looks like the better player imho. On the field, its not even close, and Cutler looks like Jon Elway compared to Jon Kitna. Cutler has what the moxy and attitude of a natural leader.

Interesting. I didn't know being a douchebag was a quality looked for in a leader.

You really don't give up do you. If you can't see that actual playing time and being in there when the bullets are flying is more beneficial than studying the playbook and running the second team in PRACTICE then I give up.

I actually don't necessarily think it is. Why is it that so many quarterbacks are better when they sit on the bench? They get to learn without having their confidence shaken. By the time they get in and are starting their 5th season, you have a good idea who they are.But you totally dismiss the fact that Rodgers becomes better at reading defenses and gets more comfortable in the pocket, Something that doesn't get worked on when you are a backup, and then you calim that the defense will be able to pick Rodgers apart. You are indeed an ignorant retard. But it is fun to watch your ass repeatedly get pwned.

[cpk1994]

TT drafted Rodgers.
Therefore Rodgers is terrible, MUST be terrible. At all costs!
Don't we all get it by now?You forgot TT gets rid of HOF'r. That is Partial in a nutshell.

[Partial]

Not really. I have no hostility towards TT at all other than leaving a gaping hole on the DL.

[mission]

Dude, Partial. I think you missed my last post.

:arrow:

:P

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Dude, Partial. I think you missed my last post.

:arrow:

:P

I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Mission.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2008/11/06/office_space__1225994848_3424.jpg

[Bossman641]

I actually don't necessarily think it is. Why is it that so many quarterbacks are better when they sit on the bench? They get to learn without having their confidence shaken. By the time they get in and are starting their 5th season, you have a good idea who they are.

Of course I think it's better for a QB to learn on the bench for a year or 2 rather than be throw to the wolves for, what is probably, a bad team. That doesn't change the fact that QB's get better from actually playing as well though.

[Little Whiskey]

Yes, Rodger is what he is imo.

All I can see is Dennis Green standing at the podium screaming.

"They are who we thought they were"

Thanks for the insight

[GrnBay007]

Yes, Rodger is what he is imo.

All I can see is Dennis Green standing at the podium screaming.

"They are who we thought they were"

Thanks for the insight

I thought that was Lovie Smith who said that??? :D

[GrnBay007]

LOL how the hell did this thread make it 7 pages??



Partial?

Naa....actually it was peeps discussing how Favre was really not all that. :?

[SnakeLH2006]

Snake browsed over these heated posts...and has one thing to say:

Favre may have not delivered championships ala Starr (abeit in an era with half or less the teams now) but delivered MANY stellar seasons and entertained the living HELL outta Snake and his friends and family. This alone makes him by far the greatest player BY FAR in Packers history. Yes, he underdelivered in post-season, yet it's hard to argue the core of his lifetime stats and what he did: MAKE YOU A PACKER FAN!!

Goddamn..I'm over the Favre shit now, as he might play one more year, but this is why we are fans....Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

[GrnBay007]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

[Gunakor]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

I don't think there are many Packer fans that are angry with Brett Favre the football player, either as a Packer or as a Jet. Not many at all, really. I think most people who are upset with Favre are upset for other non-football reasons. And I think that anger will dissipate quickly, as long as we aren't constantly reminded about what happened last summer.

Personally, I've let it go. Or tried to anyway. I think others should do the same, both those arguing how bad Favre was and those arguing how good Favre was, both those arguing that Ted Thompson was right and those arguing that Brett Favre was right. Hey, Aaron Rodgers is pretty good too, and he's our QB now. Let's focus on that, and let Brett retire into the Packers and NFL HOF without being constantly reminded of the messy divorce, who was right and who was wrong.

[The Shadow]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

Not me. As long as it was another team.

[cpk1994]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

Not me. As long as it was another team.Same here. But I will not ever think of Favre in the positive until he at least steps forward and apologizes for acting like a whiny little jerk.

EDIT: Gotta put my response in the correct location.

[Gunakor]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

Not me. As long as it was another team.Same here. But I will not ever think of Favre in the positive until he at least steps forward and apologizes for acting like a whiny little jerk.

EDIT: Gotta put my response in the correct location.

That's also what I'm talking about. Let it go. He doesn't have anything to apologize to you personally about, so why are you so being so personal about it? Let it go. It's not like the circus he created/was part of will ruin the franchise. We'll rebound before you know it. Just FORGET what happened. It's over, and I think it all worked out in the end anyway. Just forget about it...

[cpk1994]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

Not me. As long as it was another team.Same here. But I will not ever think of Favre in the positive until he at least steps forward and apologizes for acting like a whiny little jerk.

EDIT: Gotta put my response in the correct location.

That's also what I'm talking about. Let it go. He doesn't have anything to apologize to you personally about, so why are you so being so personal about it? Let it go. It's not like the circus he created/was part of will ruin the franchise. We'll rebound before you know it. Just FORGET what happened. It's over, and I think it all worked out in the end anyway. Just forget about it...Im not being personal or agnry. Just stating that he pissed on the organization I root for passionately and made Arron Rodgers public enemy #1 amongst fans for a short time becuase of his immature behavior. I won't think positvely about him. That doesn't mean Im still angry. Just simple opinion.

But he does owe an apology to Packer Nation for the way he acted.

[esoxx]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

Not me. As long as it was another team.Same here. But I will not ever think of Favre in the positive until he at least steps forward and apologizes for acting like a whiny little jerk.

EDIT: Gotta put my response in the correct location.

That's also what I'm talking about. Let it go. He doesn't have anything to apologize to you personally about, so why are you so being so personal about it? Let it go. It's not like the circus he created/was part of will ruin the franchise. We'll rebound before you know it. Just FORGET what happened. It's over, and I think it all worked out in the end anyway. Just forget about it...Im not being personal or agnry. Just stating that he pissed on the organization I root for passionately and made Arron Rodgers public enemy #1 amongst fans for a short time becuase of his immature behavior. I won't think positvely about him. That doesn't mean Im still angry. Just simple opinion.

But he does owe an apology to Packer Nation for the way he acted.

No, you're never angry are you.
He doesn't owe an apology to you or any other simpleton.
Really, it's just a simple opinion. Simple being the operative word.

[SnakeLH2006]

.Was I the only one actually giving a shit for once about Jets/or even AFC football for once in 2008 just to see what Favre did. Yes, he's tailed off, but his mere presence/unpredictability/charisma is what made him not only the best GB player of all time/but top 10 NFL player EVER. Go with stats/championships...but no one can touch Brett with pure watchability...this is what made Brett great. Stop hating peeps and enjoy. Brett's the man.

:tup:

I'm thinking some Packer fans that are still angry he came back and played for another team will admit this down the road. Time will tell.

Not me. As long as it was another team.Same here. But I will not ever think of Favre in the positive until he at least steps forward and apologizes for acting like a whiny little jerk.

EDIT: Gotta put my response in the correct location.

That's also what I'm talking about. Let it go. He doesn't have anything to apologize to you personally about, so why are you so being so personal about it? Let it go. It's not like the circus he created/was part of will ruin the franchise. We'll rebound before you know it. Just FORGET what happened. It's over, and I think it all worked out in the end anyway. Just forget about it...Im not being personal or agnry. Just stating that he pissed on the organization I root for passionately and made Arron Rodgers public enemy #1 amongst fans for a short time becuase of his immature behavior. I won't think positvely about him. That doesn't mean Im still angry. Just simple opinion.

But he does owe an apology to Packer Nation for the way he acted.

No, you're never angry are you.
He doesn't owe an apology to you or any other simpleton.
Really, it's just a simple opinion. Simple being the operative word.

LOL that! CPK is just mad that Favre drank his milkshake (check my sig). :lol: