Gil Brandt's comments on Ted Thompson

[packers04]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.

[Pacopete4]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.


Below .500 football during his run, some pretty good drafting and young players, a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work, oh and ZERO superbowls... I'm a results person and so far they are not there.. the NFC championship game was nice, but if thats it... time to move on.

[Packerarcher]

anyone that wants TT can have him as far as I am concerned.

[packers04]

oh my, i cant believe i cheer for the same team as you two...

[Pacopete4]

oh my, i cant believe i cheer for the same team as you two...


what did I say that's incorrect? I'm not a huge fan of how TT is doing things but I'll give him this season to turn it around or I want him gone. I'm sure there are a lot more Packer fans that feel the same way.

[BallHawk]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.


Below .500 football during his run, some pretty good drafting and young players, a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work, oh and ZERO superbowls... I'm a results person and so far they are not there.. the NFC championship game was nice, but if thats it... time to move on.

Troll.

[denverYooper]

It seems to me that he's been working on building a base for long-term success. At least, that's what I feel like the plan is.

We'll see how this plays out in the next 2 years or so. I think they've got most of the pieces, now they have to make them go.

[Brandon494]

It really doesnt matter what TT does here in GB, some people will never forgive him because of the whole Favre drama. TT is one of the top GMs in the league, anyone with half a brain can realize that. I don't really care what the anti-ted people think because those are the same guys who will be cheering for Favre to beat us as a Viking just to prove TT wrong. Those guys are NOT packer fans, they just have a man crushe on Favre.

BTW this is not a Favre bash, I just do not believe anyone is higher than the team no matter how good that player is, something some of you on this board just dont get.

[Pacopete4]

It really doesnt matter what TT does here in GB, some people will never forgive him because of the whole Favre drama. TT is one of the top GMs in the league, anyone with half a brain can realize that. I don't really care what the anti-ted people think because those are the same guys who will be cheering for Favre to beat us as a Viking just to prove TT wrong. Those guys are NOT packer fans, they just have a man crushe on Favre.

BTW this is not a Favre bash, I just do not believe anyone is higher than the team no matter how good that player is, something some of you on this board just dont get.


You do realize there are some people who just feel TT is not doing a great job here, right? There doesn't just have to be two categories of people. I guess if that makes you feel better about the job TT has done, then so be it.

[hoosier]

It really doesnt matter what TT does here in GB, some people will never forgive him because of the whole Favre drama. TT is one of the top GMs in the league, anyone with half a brain can realize that. I don't really care what the anti-ted people think because those are the same guys who will be cheering for Favre to beat us as a Viking just to prove TT wrong. Those guys are NOT packer fans, they just have a man crushe on Favre.

BTW this is not a Favre bash, I just do not believe anyone is higher than the team no matter how good that player is, something some of you on this board just dont get.

I doubt very much that the anti-TT sentiment is based on the Favre fiasco. I think a large part of it is because TT doesn't look good on TV and doesn't make big splashes in free agency. Many of the people who don't like TT are the same ones who get excited about offseason power polls.

[Bossman641]

It really doesnt matter what TT does here in GB, some people will never forgive him because of the whole Favre drama. TT is one of the top GMs in the league, anyone with half a brain can realize that. I don't really care what the anti-ted people think because those are the same guys who will be cheering for Favre to beat us as a Viking just to prove TT wrong. Those guys are NOT packer fans, they just have a man crushe on Favre.

BTW this is not a Favre bash, I just do not believe anyone is higher than the team no matter how good that player is, something some of you on this board just dont get.

I doubt very much that the anti-TT sentiment is based on the Favre fiasco. I think a large part of it is because TT doesn't look good on TV and doesn't make big splashes in free agency. Many of the people who don't like TT are the same ones who get excited about offseason power polls.

I agree to a point. There were a large amount of anti-TT fans based on his methodical approach, secrecy, and unwillingness to help Favre in their eyes. The Favre fiasco increased that amount tenfold though. I don't know how often you go to GBPG or JSO, but reading comments there is sickening. I almost hope Favre goes to the Vikings so all the Favre fans can jump to that team.

[Jimx29]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.Don't forget missing the playoffs 3 of the 4 years he's been here, and missing 4 of the last 5 a very real possibility


Below .500 football during his run, some pretty good drafting and young players, a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work, oh and ZERO superbowls... I'm a results person and so far they are not there.. the NFC championship game was nice, but if thats it... time to move on.

[SkinBasket]

I love the "Superbowl or Bust" mentality. These are the same people that believe Green Bay fails any time it doesn't sign any big name free agent.

[ND72]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.


Below .500 football during his run, some pretty good drafting and young players, a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work, oh and ZERO superbowls... I'm a results person and so far they are not there.. the NFC championship game was nice, but if thats it... time to move on.

4-12 - I don't consider HIS fault...that's as much on Sherman as anyone
8-8 - Building blocks
13-3 - winning team ahead of schedule
6-10 - major injuries, faulty defensive calls, favre drama...

31-33 as a GM...take out the 4-12, and you're 27-21. as far as the new defensive scheme, um, HELLO...that's the Head Coaches job, NOT the GM's.

if you don't see what's he's truly done in building a solid young team for years to come, you need to move to Chicago and join their bandwagon. I just don't get how you don't see the benefits of what he's done here. I can't wait to revisit this thread at the end of next season, just to laugh at the anti-TT.

[Joemailman]

I largely agree with ND, but this is a big year for Thompson. If the Packers have a strong year, that's 2 out of 3, and the future is bright. If the Packers have another losing season, that's 2 in a row and a lot of questions are going to be raised.

[Partial]

I guess I don't buy the injury excuse. We lost A) Jenkins, who was largely ineffective due to injury in 2007, and B) Barnett, who was a real dynamo in 2007, and then C) Harris for a few weeks, but his replacement was more than adequate during this time.

The only real injury difference that I see was Barnett. He is definitely a difference maker, but a 7 game difference maker? Hard to say.

With that said, last year was a weird year and it will be nice to watch them bounce back this year. They have an easier schedule and should be expected to 9-7 at least, more likely 10-6.

My only small beef with teets is that he needs to draft a little bit better if he isn't going to supplement via FA. He is a pretty good drafter in the lower rounds by all accounts, but he needs some ozzie newsome magic to find a defensive stud. Hopefully, Raji or Matthews is that person and I can insert my foot into my mouth. That is the huge need of the team -- a defensive superstar to compliment Jennings on offensive.

[Pacopete4]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.


Below .500 football during his run, some pretty good drafting and young players, a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work, oh and ZERO superbowls... I'm a results person and so far they are not there.. the NFC championship game was nice, but if thats it... time to move on.

4-12 - I don't consider HIS fault...that's as much on Sherman as anyone
8-8 - Building blocks
13-3 - winning team ahead of schedule
6-10 - major injuries, faulty defensive calls, favre drama...

31-33 as a GM...take out the 4-12, and you're 27-21. as far as the new defensive scheme, um, HELLO...that's the Head Coaches job, NOT the GM's.

if you don't see what's he's truly done in building a solid young team for years to come, you need to move to Chicago and join their bandwagon. I just don't get how you don't see the benefits of what he's done here. I can't wait to revisit this thread at the end of next season, just to laugh at the anti-TT.

[channtheman]

TT hasn't led the Packers to the Super Bowl and won it every year, time to go. Never mind the foundation that he is laying down for the Packers to be a very good team in the long run.

[Pacopete4]

TT hasn't led the Packers to the Super Bowl and won it every year, time to go. Never mind the foundation that he is laying down for the Packers to be a very good team in the long run.


In which year will you say ok, thats enough.. he may be laying a foundation but he hasnt actually won. Please tell me after which year is it ok to hold TT to the standards of the other 31 NFL GM's?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If the packers dont' win the superbowl each and every year i consider the season to be an abject failure.

[Joemailman]

I guess I don't buy the injury excuse. We lost A) Jenkins, who was largely ineffective due to injury in 2007, and B) Barnett, who was a real dynamo in 2007, and then C) Harris for a few weeks, but his replacement was more than adequate during this time.

The only real injury difference that I see was Barnett. He is definitely a difference maker, but a 7 game difference maker? Hard to say.

With that said, last year was a weird year and it will be nice to watch them bounce back this year. They have an easier schedule and should be expected to 9-7 at least, more likely 10-6.

I think the lack of a quality DC magnified the injury problem. Once Jenkins and KGB were gone (KGB was never really there), a good DC would have made major changes instead of continuing to line up in the same base defense all year. I also think moving Woodson to safety was a mistake. Sanders turned an all-pro cornerback into an average safety.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I largely agree with ND, but this is a big year for Thompson. If the Packers have a strong year, that's 2 out of 3, and the future is bright. If the Packers have another losing season, that's 2 in a row and a lot of questions are going to be raised.

Agreed. I think he gets two more years. If the team struggles this year, the heat will be on next year. For the people that don't like Thompson, what if the Packers make the playoffs this year?

[cheesner]

oh my, i cant believe i cheer for the same team as you two...


what did I say that's incorrect? I'm not a huge fan of how TT is doing things but I'll give him this season to turn it around or I want him gone. I'm sure there are a lot more Packer fans that feel the same way.
Giving him a year? Seems like you have been on his ass for 3 years already.

It is the irrationality of the blind bitterness that comes across in your posts that is disconcerting. It is like people posting very negative things about Favre. Yes Brett did have some bad points, and some choose to be negative and dwell on them. But overall he was a great QB and a great Packer.

[cheesner]

I guess I don't buy the injury excuse. We lost A) Jenkins, who was largely ineffective due to injury in 2007, and B) Barnett, who was a real dynamo in 2007, and then C) Harris for a few weeks, but his replacement was more than adequate during this time.

The only real injury difference that I see was Barnett. He is definitely a difference maker, but a 7 game difference maker? Hard to say.

With that said, last year was a weird year and it will be nice to watch them bounce back this year. They have an easier schedule and should be expected to 9-7 at least, more likely 10-6.

I think the lack of a quality DC magnified the injury problem. Once Jenkins and KGB were gone (KGB was never really there), a good DC would have made major changes instead of continuing to line up in the same base defense all year. I also think moving Woodson to safety was a mistake. Sanders turned an all-pro cornerback into an average safety.We will soon find out. Seems like 2 years ago they were on the verge of being dominating - top 10 defense. Not sure why that didn't happen, but the injuries I am sure where a huge impact.

[Pacopete4]

oh my, i cant believe i cheer for the same team as you two...


what did I say that's incorrect? I'm not a huge fan of how TT is doing things but I'll give him this season to turn it around or I want him gone. I'm sure there are a lot more Packer fans that feel the same way.
Giving him a year? Seems like you have been on his ass for 3 years already.

It is the irrationality of the blind bitterness that comes across in your posts that is disconcerting. It is like people posting very negative things about Favre. Yes Brett did have some bad points, and some choose to be negative and dwell on them. But overall he was a great QB and a great Packer.

I'll break down my post for you:


Below .500 football during his run- yes, he is under .500 as an NFL GM. He did inherit an over paid team on the decline, but still under .500.. which is not good! I have seen other GM's build while still making the playoffs, having winning seasons ect...

some pretty good drafting and young players- a great thing about TT. Even though he might biffed on Harrell, hes made some great draft picks and got us some good young talent.

a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work- Part of the GM's job is to get in a coach/coaching staff that does the job. Well he's already failed on the defensive side of the ball whether it was McCarthy's pick or not, does not matter.. cuz guess who hired McCarthy... TT! Now thats not saying this move right here wont work and it'll be the best thing for Packer football since good ole #4 was traded for but it could also be like the zone blocking scheme and suck balls

oh and ZERO superbowls... he has had 4 seasons now. Time is going against him. Like I said.. I'm a results guy and so far, there really hasnt been the results of this great plan he put in place. We've only made the playoffs ONE of his FOUR seasons here. That is NOT GOOD.

Like I said, if the NFC championship game was our high point and we struggle again this season.. time to move on and bring in someone who will do a better job.

Now if TT's plan works out and we start actually winning, then awesome... I'm happy. But don't put your friggin head in the sand and pretend like all is well in Packer land when its really not.

[Bretsky]

I largely agree with ND, but this is a big year for Thompson. If the Packers have a strong year, that's 2 out of 3, and the future is bright. If the Packers have another losing season, that's 2 in a row and a lot of questions are going to be raised.

Agreed. I think he gets two more years. If the team struggles this year, the heat will be on next year. For the people that don't like Thompson, what if the Packers make the playoffs this year?


Not sure if I fall into that category; but playoffs are an expectation this year
I'm not sure we should hail TT for just getting there unless that's the goal.

If we make them, as we should expect them to, then it appears we are headed in the right directions toward the goal that puts TTT in elite territory

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote="Pacopete4"]
Below .500 football during his run- yes, he is under .500 as an NFL GM. He did inherit an over paid team on the decline, but still under .500.. which is not good! I have seen other GM's build while still making the playoffs, having winning seasons ect...

[/quote="Pacopete4"]

Examples please.

[packers04]

good discussion i love it!

[ThunderDan]

[quote="Pacopete4"]
oh and ZERO superbowls... he has had 4 seasons now. Time is going against him. Like I said.. I'm a results guy and so far, there really hasnt been the results of this great plan he put in place. We've only made the playoffs ONE of his FOUR seasons here. That is NOT GOOD.
[quote]

How many Superbowls has New England won in the last 4 years? Time to fire their GM. How about Dallas, Baltimore or Philly? Can them all!!! What shitty football teams!!!

edit: Getting Quotes Right

[Lurker64]

I have to say, I trust Gil Brandt's ability to evaluate general managers more than I trust the ability of anybody here.

Gil Brandt knows football.

[Pacopete4]

[quote=Pacopete4]
Below .500 football during his run- yes, he is under .500 as an NFL GM. He did inherit an over paid team on the decline, but still under .500.. which is not good! I have seen other GM's build while still making the playoffs, having winning seasons ect...

[/quote="Pacopete4"]

Examples please.


every year the Patriots, Colts and Steelers are rebuilding while maintaining a high level of play without missing a beat.

[ThunderDan]

oh my, i cant believe i cheer for the same team as you two...


what did I say that's incorrect? I'm not a huge fan of how TT is doing things but I'll give him this season to turn it around or I want him gone. I'm sure there are a lot more Packer fans that feel the same way.
Giving him a year? Seems like you have been on his ass for 3 years already.

It is the irrationality of the blind bitterness that comes across in your posts that is disconcerting. It is like people posting very negative things about Favre. Yes Brett did have some bad points, and some choose to be negative and dwell on them. But overall he was a great QB and a great Packer.

I'll break down my post for you:


Below .500 football during his run- yes, he is under .500 as an NFL GM. He did inherit an over paid team on the decline, but still under .500.. which is not good! I have seen other GM's build while still making the playoffs, having winning seasons ect...

some pretty good drafting and young players- a great thing about TT. Even though he might biffed on Harrell, hes made some great draft picks and got us some good young talent.

a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work- Part of the GM's job is to get in a coach/coaching staff that does the job. Well he's already failed on the defensive side of the ball whether it was McCarthy's pick or not, does not matter.. cuz guess who hired McCarthy... TT! Now thats not saying this move right here wont work and it'll be the best thing for Packer football since good ole #4 was traded for but it could also be like the zone blocking scheme and suck balls

oh and ZERO superbowls... he has had 4 seasons now. Time is going against him. Like I said.. I'm a results guy and so far, there really hasnt been the results of this great plan he put in place. We've only made the playoffs ONE of his FOUR seasons here. That is NOT GOOD.

Like I said, if the NFC championship game was our high point and we struggle again this season.. time to move on and bring in someone who will do a better job.

Now if TT's plan works out and we start actually winning, then awesome... I'm happy. But don't put your friggin head in the sand and pretend like all is well in Packer land when its really not.

I guess that means that 29 NFL GMs need to be fired using that logic of the last 4 years.

[Pacopete4]

oh my, i cant believe i cheer for the same team as you two...


what did I say that's incorrect? I'm not a huge fan of how TT is doing things but I'll give him this season to turn it around or I want him gone. I'm sure there are a lot more Packer fans that feel the same way.
Giving him a year? Seems like you have been on his ass for 3 years already.

It is the irrationality of the blind bitterness that comes across in your posts that is disconcerting. It is like people posting very negative things about Favre. Yes Brett did have some bad points, and some choose to be negative and dwell on them. But overall he was a great QB and a great Packer.

I'll break down my post for you:


Below .500 football during his run- yes, he is under .500 as an NFL GM. He did inherit an over paid team on the decline, but still under .500.. which is not good! I have seen other GM's build while still making the playoffs, having winning seasons ect...

some pretty good drafting and young players- a great thing about TT. Even though he might biffed on Harrell, hes made some great draft picks and got us some good young talent.

a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work- Part of the GM's job is to get in a coach/coaching staff that does the job. Well he's already failed on the defensive side of the ball whether it was McCarthy's pick or not, does not matter.. cuz guess who hired McCarthy... TT! Now thats not saying this move right here wont work and it'll be the best thing for Packer football since good ole #4 was traded for but it could also be like the zone blocking scheme and suck balls

oh and ZERO superbowls... he has had 4 seasons now. Time is going against him. Like I said.. I'm a results guy and so far, there really hasnt been the results of this great plan he put in place. We've only made the playoffs ONE of his FOUR seasons here. That is NOT GOOD.

Like I said, if the NFC championship game was our high point and we struggle again this season.. time to move on and bring in someone who will do a better job.

Now if TT's plan works out and we start actually winning, then awesome... I'm happy. But don't put your friggin head in the sand and pretend like all is well in Packer land when its really not.

I guess that means that 29 NFL GMs need to be fired using that logic of the last 4 years.


Ok ThunderDan... then how many years are you going to give him? How many years of non winning Green Bay football are u going to go through before you say enough is enough. Hell I'm not to that point yet, but if this years not a winner and I'm talking 10+ wins with a real run at winning a super bowl, then your damn right I'm sick of TT.

[DannoMac21]

I guess I don't buy the injury excuse. We lost A) Jenkins, who was largely ineffective due to injury in 2007, and B) Barnett, who was a real dynamo in 2007, and then C) Harris for a few weeks, but his replacement was more than adequate during this time.

The only real injury difference that I see was Barnett. He is definitely a difference maker, but a 7 game difference maker? Hard to say.

With that said, last year was a weird year and it will be nice to watch them bounce back this year. They have an easier schedule and should be expected to 9-7 at least, more likely 10-6.

My only small beef with teets is that he needs to draft a little bit better if he isn't going to supplement via FA. He is a pretty good drafter in the lower rounds by all accounts, but he needs some ozzie newsome magic to find a defensive stud. Hopefully, Raji or Matthews is that person and I can insert my foot into my mouth. That is the huge need of the team -- a defensive superstar to compliment Rodgers on offensive.

Fixed

[Partial]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

[Rastak]

I listen to Gil Brandt on NFL Radio quite often in the evenings.....he does know his stuff. Last time he discussed Thompson on the radio he was very complimentary. Indicated those that know him really get along well with him and he's extremely knowledgeable. Now 20 minutes earlier he was talking up the Vikings big time. He knows his football!

[Pacopete4]

I listen to Gil Brandt on NFL Radio quite often in the evenings.....he does know his stuff. Last time he discussed Thompson on the radio he was very complimentary. Indicated those that know him really get along well with him and he's extremely knowledgeable. Now 20 minutes earlier he was talking up the Vikings big time. He knows his football!


Does he ever say anything negative about anything?

[Rastak]

I listen to Gil Brandt on NFL Radio quite often in the evenings.....he does know his stuff. Last time he discussed Thompson on the radio he was very complimentary. Indicated those that know him really get along well with him and he's extremely knowledgeable. Now 20 minutes earlier he was talking up the Vikings big time. He knows his football!


Does he ever say anything negative about anything?


No, very rarely....a good point....but he doesn't rave about everything either and he was REALLY high on both Teddy T and the Vikings this upcoming season.

[Pacopete4]

No, very rarely....a good point....but he doesn't rave about everything either and he was REALLY high on both Teddy T and the Vikings this upcoming season.


what did he have to say about the idea of Favre being on the Vikes? Anything?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote=Pacopete4]
Below .500 football during his run- yes, he is under .500 as an NFL GM. He did inherit an over paid team on the decline, but still under .500.. which is not good! I have seen other GM's build while still making the playoffs, having winning seasons ect...

[/quote="Pacopete4"]

Examples please.


every year the Patriots, Colts and Steelers are rebuilding while maintaining a high level of play without missing a beat.


inherit an over paid team on the decline

When were the steelers, pats, and colts on the decline?

[Rastak]

No, very rarely....a good point....but he doesn't rave about everything either and he was REALLY high on both Teddy T and the Vikings this upcoming season.


what did he have to say about the idea of Favre being on the Vikes? Anything?


He thought it was a great fit.....and he likes Loadholt and Harvin to make rookie impacts.

Tim Ryan and Pa Kirwin also seem to think Favre would be a huge upgrade. I still say you HAVE to limit his throws or yank him late in the season...just my take there.

[Scott Campbell]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.


Respect around league circles is worth way more than respect in the stands. This is very interesting.

[Pacopete4]

No, very rarely....a good point....but he doesn't rave about everything either and he was REALLY high on both Teddy T and the Vikings this upcoming season.


what did he have to say about the idea of Favre being on the Vikes? Anything?


He thought it was a great fit.....and he likes Loadholt and Harvin to make rookie impacts.

Tim Ryan and Pa Kirwin also seem to think Favre would be a huge upgrade. I still say you HAVE to limit his throws or yank him late in the season...just my take there.


The nice part for the Vikes is they do seem, and when I say seem to you never know the NFL, to have a pretty easy first 5 games to start the season that could be beneficial for Favre if he came back. If you were only throwing 20-25 times a game and passes that were manageable, he might stay fresh for a playoff run. But again, a lot of things have to work in order for something like that to happen. A Favre led Viking team is a scary thought, no matter if a lot of people don't seem to think it, I do.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

A Favre led Viking team is a scary thought, no matter if a lot of people don't seem to think it, I do.

You like it...you want the vikes to be better than the pack?

[ThunderDan]

Ok ThunderDan... then how many years are you going to give him? How many years of non winning Green Bay football are u going to go through before you say enough is enough. Hell I'm not to that point yet, but if this years not a winner and I'm talking 10+ wins with a real run at winning a super bowl, then your damn right I'm sick of TT.

You are already damn sick of him.

We go:
4-12
8-8
13-3
6-10

2005 was a complete rebuilding year. We finally have the group of core players to make a run. I think 2008 was the abberation. I think the next two years tells us if TT is taking us the right direction.

[Bossman641]

oh my, i cant believe i cheer for the same team as you two...


what did I say that's incorrect? I'm not a huge fan of how TT is doing things but I'll give him this season to turn it around or I want him gone. I'm sure there are a lot more Packer fans that feel the same way.
Giving him a year? Seems like you have been on his ass for 3 years already.

It is the irrationality of the blind bitterness that comes across in your posts that is disconcerting. It is like people posting very negative things about Favre. Yes Brett did have some bad points, and some choose to be negative and dwell on them. But overall he was a great QB and a great Packer.

I'll break down my post for you:


Below .500 football during his run- yes, he is under .500 as an NFL GM. He did inherit an over paid team on the decline, but still under .500.. which is not good! I have seen other GM's build while still making the playoffs, having winning seasons ect...

some pretty good drafting and young players- a great thing about TT. Even though he might biffed on Harrell, hes made some great draft picks and got us some good young talent.

a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work- Part of the GM's job is to get in a coach/coaching staff that does the job. Well he's already failed on the defensive side of the ball whether it was McCarthy's pick or not, does not matter.. cuz guess who hired McCarthy... TT! Now thats not saying this move right here wont work and it'll be the best thing for Packer football since good ole #4 was traded for but it could also be like the zone blocking scheme and suck balls

oh and ZERO superbowls... he has had 4 seasons now. Time is going against him. Like I said.. I'm a results guy and so far, there really hasnt been the results of this great plan he put in place. We've only made the playoffs ONE of his FOUR seasons here. That is NOT GOOD.

Like I said, if the NFC championship game was our high point and we struggle again this season.. time to move on and bring in someone who will do a better job.

Now if TT's plan works out and we start actually winning, then awesome... I'm happy. But don't put your friggin head in the sand and pretend like all is well in Packer land when its really not.

I guess that means that 29 NFL GMs need to be fired using that logic of the last 4 years.


Ok ThunderDan... then how many years are you going to give him? How many years of non winning Green Bay football are u going to go through before you say enough is enough. Hell I'm not to that point yet, but if this years not a winner and I'm talking 10+ wins with a real run at winning a super bowl, then your damn right I'm sick of TT.

Wait

So this has been you being patient and understanding with TT? I can't wait to see your posts in the future then if the Packers struggle this year.

[Pacopete4]

Ok ThunderDan... then how many years are you going to give him? How many years of non winning Green Bay football are u going to go through before you say enough is enough. Hell I'm not to that point yet, but if this years not a winner and I'm talking 10+ wins with a real run at winning a super bowl, then your damn right I'm sick of TT.

You are already damn sick of him.

We go:
4-12
8-8
13-3
6-10

2005 was a complete rebuilding year. We finally have the group of core players to make a run. I think 2008 was the abberation. I think the next two years tells us if TT is taking us the right direction.


So IF this season goes to waste like last years, what excuse will you be making? Will it be injuries.. TT not having enough time.. Rodgers still learning... new coaches... what will it be?

I'm hoping TT knows what the fuck hes doing cuz it hasnt been a pretty road so far. Thank god the pack caught fire with Favre in 07 or we'd be a complete fuckin joke right now.. THAT is the only leg TT has to stand on right now.. thats it.

[Bossman641]

Ok ThunderDan... then how many years are you going to give him? How many years of non winning Green Bay football are u going to go through before you say enough is enough. Hell I'm not to that point yet, but if this years not a winner and I'm talking 10+ wins with a real run at winning a super bowl, then your damn right I'm sick of TT.

You are already damn sick of him.

We go:
4-12
8-8
13-3
6-10

2005 was a complete rebuilding year. We finally have the group of core players to make a run. I think 2008 was the abberation. I think the next two years tells us if TT is taking us the right direction.


So IF this season goes to waste like last years, what excuse will you be making? Will it be injuries.. TT not having enough time.. Rodgers still learning... new coaches... what will it be?

I'm hoping TT knows what the fuck hes doing cuz it hasnt been a pretty road so far. Thank god the pack caught fire in 07 with a complete team effort (offense, defense, ST) or we'd be a complete fuckin joke right now.. THAT is the only leg TT has to stand on right now.. thats it.

Fixed

[Pacopete4]

Ok ThunderDan... then how many years are you going to give him? How many years of non winning Green Bay football are u going to go through before you say enough is enough. Hell I'm not to that point yet, but if this years not a winner and I'm talking 10+ wins with a real run at winning a super bowl, then your damn right I'm sick of TT.

You are already damn sick of him.

We go:
4-12
8-8
13-3
6-10

2005 was a complete rebuilding year. We finally have the group of core players to make a run. I think 2008 was the abberation. I think the next two years tells us if TT is taking us the right direction.


So IF this season goes to waste like last years, what excuse will you be making? Will it be injuries.. TT not having enough time.. Rodgers still learning... new coaches... what will it be?

I'm hoping TT knows what the fuck hes doing cuz it hasnt been a pretty road so far. Thank god the pack caught fire in 07 with Favre or we'd be a complete fuckin joke right now.. THAT is the only leg TT has to stand on right now.. thats it.

Fixed

[The Leaper]

Thompson is an excellent evaluator of talent. He really hasn't made a terrible draft choice in his time in Green Bay. Sure, he has made some that didn't pan out...but he doesn't have any BJ Sander type pickups where any bum off the street could've made a better pick.

That said...Thompson hasn't proven he can make the kind of acquisitions to put a team over the top, like a Ron Wolf could. I'm not sure he would be my #1 choice as a GM right now...but he'd certainly have a strong argument to be in the top 5.

[Partial]

Fixed

Having said the complete team effort, it raises a very valid point. Take that season out of the equation (it's a statistical anomaly to this point) and Teets record is pretty damn bad. I'm with Harv on the two seasons to prove himself left. The Pack is a patient organization.

[Pacopete4]

Fixed

Having said the complete team effort, it raises a very valid point. Take that season out of the equation (it's a statistical anomaly to this point) and Teets record is pretty damn bad. I'm with Harv on the two seasons to prove himself left. The Pack is a patient organization.


He will buy himself another year just by having a mediocre year this season.

[Bossman641]

Fixed

Having said the complete team effort, it raises a very valid point. Take that season out of the equation (it's a statistical anomaly to this point) and Teets record is pretty damn bad. I'm with Harv on the two seasons to prove himself left. The Pack is a patient organization.

If 13-3 is an anomaly I'd argue 4-12 is as well. What does that leave us with? A team that went 14-18 in two seasons.

I'm right with you on TT having 2 years left to prove himself. After that, if they don't improve as I think they will I'll be right there alongside Pacopete.

[ThunderDan]

So IF this season goes to waste like last years, what excuse will you be making? Will it be injuries.. TT not having enough time.. Rodgers still learning... new coaches... what will it be?


I'll wait until the end of the year and then I will evaluate what I saw and make my conclusions.

Like the Studs & Duds column I wrote for PackerRats, I call it as I see it. If I think someone deserves props I give them if they don't I don't.

Oh...as well as Favre played in 2007 and he was damn good. It sure helps when your have the 6th best scoring defense at 18.2 ppg.

[ThunderDan]

Fixed

Having said the complete team effort, it raises a very valid point. Take that season out of the equation (it's a statistical anomaly to this point) and Teets record is pretty damn bad. I'm with Harv on the two seasons to prove himself left. The Pack is a patient organization.

Sorry Partial but when you only have 4 data points its damn hard to throw one out.

[Scott Campbell]

TT hasn't led the Packers to the Super Bowl and won it every year, time to go. Never mind the foundation that he is laying down for the Packers to be a very good team in the long run.


In which year will you say ok, thats enough..


When Gil Brandt says that Ted doesn't have it anymore.

[Bretsky]

I have to say, I trust Gil Brandt's ability to evaluate general managers more than I trust the ability of anybody here.

Gil Brandt knows football.


that old washed up geezer ? :lol: :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

I have to say, I trust Gil Brandt's ability to evaluate general managers more than I trust the ability of anybody here.

Gil Brandt knows football.


that old washed up geezer ? :lol: :lol:


Leave it to Bretsky to bring Favre into this. :roll:

[BF4MVP]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.
Why would one have a difficult time ranking Rodgers as a Blue Chipper? All he did was throw for over 4,000 yards with 32 total touchdowns and 13 INTs...

People constantly underestimate how good a season he had. Wins and losses are a team effort. The team had a bad season. The defense in particular had a terrible season as evidenced by the decision to fire just about all of the coaches and change the scheme. Stats are the best way to judge an individual player's performance, and Rodgers' are right up there with just about anyone's....

I wouldn't call Jennings "the team's best player by far." I would say Rodgers is the team's best player, but it's close. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.

[Bretsky]

[quote=Partial]
I would call Jennings the team's best player by far. I would say Rodgers is the team's best player, but it's close. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.


I'm confused; so which one is the best player again :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.
Why would one have a difficult time ranking Rodgers as a Blue Chipper? All he did was throw for over 4,000 yards with 32 total touchdowns and 13 INTs...

People constantly underestimate how good a season he had. Wins and losses are a team effort. The team had a bad season. The defense in particular had a terrible season as evidenced by the decision to fire just about all of the coaches and change the scheme. Stats are the best way to judge an individual player's performance, and Rodgers' are right up there with just about anyone's....

I would call Jennings the team's best player by far. I would say Rodgers is the team's best player, but it's close. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.

Rodgers > Jennings. At least for last year anyway.

[BF4MVP]

[quote=Partial]
I would call Jennings the team's best player by far. I would say Rodgers is the team's best player, but it's close. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.


I'm confused; so which one is the best player again :lol:
LOL my bad. :lol: I WOULDN'T say Jennings is the best player on the team.

I WOULD say it's Rodgers.

[BF4MVP]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.
Why would one have a difficult time ranking Rodgers as a Blue Chipper? All he did was throw for over 4,000 yards with 32 total touchdowns and 13 INTs...

People constantly underestimate how good a season he had. Wins and losses are a team effort. The team had a bad season. The defense in particular had a terrible season as evidenced by the decision to fire just about all of the coaches and change the scheme. Stats are the best way to judge an individual player's performance, and Rodgers' are right up there with just about anyone's....

I would call Jennings the team's best player by far. I would say Rodgers is the team's best player, but it's close. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.

Rodgers > Jennings. At least for last year anyway.
Agreed

[Scott Campbell]

THAT is the only leg TT has to stand on right now.. thats it.


That's it - huh?

I think he can also stand on his Executive of the Year win. They didn't give him that for inheriting Favre. He can also stand on his contract extension. And he can also stand on the shoulders of dynasty building personnel guys like Gil Brandt, who apparently thinks that Ted is on par with Bill B. and Peyton Manning as being the best in the business. It's tremendous praise, and obviously its struck a nerve with you.

[Pacopete4]

THAT is the only leg TT has to stand on right now.. thats it.


That's it - huh?

I think he can also stand on his Executive of the Year win. They didn't give him that for inheriting Favre. He can also stand on his contract extension. And he can also stand on the shoulders of dynasty building personnel guys like Gil Brandt, who apparently thinks that Ted is on par with Bill B. and Peyton Manning as being the best in the business. It's tremendous praise, and obviously its struck a nerve with you.


naw no nerve.. like I have stated.. I'll be the happiest guy if he just does his fucking job and starts winning more. Til that happens, ur damn right I'm not gonna be happy about Packer football and I'm not sure why any fan would be..

[Bossman641]

THAT is the only leg TT has to stand on right now.. thats it.


That's it - huh?

I think he can also stand on his Executive of the Year win. They didn't give him that for inheriting Favre. He can also stand on his contract extension. And he can also stand on the shoulders of dynasty building personnel guys like Gil Brandt, who apparently thinks that Ted is on par with Bill B. and Peyton Manning as being the best in the business. It's tremendous praise, and obviously its struck a nerve with you.

He also inspired a series of "Ted is Trapped in the Closet" writings that were works of art.

[channtheman]

TT hasn't led the Packers to the Super Bowl and won it every year, time to go. Never mind the foundation that he is laying down for the Packers to be a very good team in the long run.


In which year will you say ok, thats enough.. he may be laying a foundation but he hasnt actually won. Please tell me after which year is it ok to hold TT to the standards of the other 31 NFL GM's?

TT can hardly be held totally responsible for the 4-12 season. Sherman as well as Favre's inability to throw the ball to our receivers that year was a huge problem. We showed a lot of improvement in the 8-8 year and made the Championship game the next. We had a lot of transitions this last year and a lot of big injuries to key players. Also, we were 2 missed field goals and 2 blown ref calls from being 10-6.

I give TT 2 years IF this year sucks. I doubt it will be though. I think we make the playoffs this year and the TT haters will have to eat their words. You can't go firing a guy after a few seasons even though he has shown improvement each year.

[rbaloha1]

TT has positioned the team for making a legitimate super bowl run in 2 years.

This is a transition year but still expect a playoff team.

[Partial]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

Why would one have a difficult time ranking Rodgers as a Blue Chipper? All he did was throw for over 4,000 yards with 32 total touchdowns and 13 INTs...

And? He has a stunning supporting cast. Do you think he's a top 4-5 player at his position in the league? Let's hold the phone before we rank in with PMans and TBrades. He's not even close.


People constantly underestimate how good a season he had. Wins and losses are a team effort. The team had a bad season. The defense in particular had a terrible season as evidenced by the decision to fire just about all of the coaches and change the scheme. Stats are the best way to judge an individual player's performance, and Rodgers' are right up there with just about anyone's....

I wouldn't call Jennings "the team's best player by far." I would say Rodgers is the team's best player, but it's close. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. There are plenty of quarterbacks you could have plugged in and had similar success. A big reason for this success was Jennings. How many receivers could you plug in and get the kind of success Jennings had? Not many.

[th87]

That said...Thompson hasn't proven he can make the kind of acquisitions to put a team over the top, like a Ron Wolf could. I'm not sure he would be my #1 choice as a GM right now...but he'd certainly have a strong argument to be in the top 5.

I don't think that's Thompson's aim yet. He's rebuilding in phases:

Phase 1: Replace the aging vets with younger talent.
Phase 2: Build quality depth, such that every position is solid.
Phase 3: Bring in difference makers to put the team over the top.

We're right around the end of Phase 1 and starting Phase 2. Tauscher is being replaced, and Clifton's getting there. There are picks invested for Harris' replacement. We also have Driver's replacements in the wings. It seems like TT's approach is to start grooming the young guys before the old guy needs to be replaced. Therefore, by the time the old timers are done, someone young (and also experienced) is ready to take their place.

This is also why TT doesn't rely on free agency as much. It upsets the "growth and replacement" process. Free agents are older and more expensive, so the whole grooming process gets put on hold to accommodate someone who likely will not grow, and will likely need to be replaced in a few years anyway.

So Phase 1 of the plan is to see if these young guys pan out. If they do not, then bring in even younger guys to see if they will. If these younger guys pan out, they become the starter, and the previous incumbent younger guy becomes quality depth. For example, Poppinga was brought in to replace the last guy, ended up becoming solid, but not spectacular. Therefore, he now makes way for Matthews, who will hopefully become the starter, which would make Poppinga quality depth.

In this way, quality depth is produced at each position, and each position boasts a solid (at least) starter.

Finally, once this is accomplished, the team goes into "win now" mode. If there are pieces that would put the team over the top (on paper), they will be pursued.

This seems like Thompson's plan. I'd give him 3 more years (at least) to execute it. Why that long? Because he's executed Phase I almost perfectly. Phase II awaits. And by about next year, or 2011, we'll solidly be in Phase III.

And not only that, it will be sustainable, given that this process will continue to repeat itself. This is pretty much how the Steelers stay relevant every year. The Patriots have adopted this philosophy as well, and will continue their success for years to come.

I believe our patience will be rewarded.

[falco]

I don't think anybody's opinions in here are without merit. Even Paco has some good points.

[Merlin]

It seems to me that he's been working on building a base for long-term success. At least, that's what I feel like the plan is.

We'll see how this plays out in the next 2 years or so. I think they've got most of the pieces, now they have to make them go.

WHAT???? The "long term success"? When he was hired 4 years ago it was "building for the future". He is now in his 5th season and now you are saying "long term success" instead of "building for the future"? Is that because it IS the future and the success isn't there? Now we have to believe that he is setting us up for the "long term"? You are joking right?

Just like the blind followers of Al Gore, if you have been proven wrong on "Global Warming", just change the name to "Climate Change", then no matter what happens your ass is covered.

Pulease.....This is the "long term" and he is NOT successful. This season is it, and no a 9-7 record isn't good enough, especially when you have an 8-8, 4-12, and 6-10 records already on your mantle. Thompson has a built in automatic excuse this season by switching to the 3-4 defense. No excuses, this is the NFL and 5 years is longer then the average NFL career lasts. THIS IS THE LONG TERM....

[RashanGary]

This is the time of year that the TT haters dig their irrelevance graves :)


Paco, merlin and packnut already have 4' dug.

[Merlin]

You need a reality check, all of the facts are out there and Thompson isn't winning us football games. Has nothing to do with "hate", it has to do with the facts. Bottom Line: Thompson isn't helping this team win football games. That is the reason the Packers play the game right? The reason you are a fan right?

Also, Bottom Line: Justin Harrell is a bust.
.
Remember folks, whatever you do, DO NOT have our own opinion, you will be tagged a "hater". Which of course is a convenient excuse for those that refuse to look at the facts.

[RashanGary]

Those who cannot see deeper than the surface are digging their irrelevancy graves :)


Us, who have vision, we will have the last laugh. hahaha

[Merlin]

I guess if you wait long enough for water to turn into wine, eventually something fermentable will end up in the water, that doesn't make it Chateau Lafite though, just a cheap drunk.

[Scott Campbell]

You need a reality check, all of the facts are out there and Thompson isn't winning us football games. Has nothing to do with "hate", it has to do with the facts.


Dude, the fact is, you were hating on Thompson during the 13-3 season. When it comes to you, it appears to have everything to do with hate.


Exhibit A: Your Jets avatar. It's pretty clear where your loyalty lies, and why you have an ax to grind.

Exhibits B-Q will be your posts from the 2007 season.

[Bossman641]

You need a reality check, all of the facts are out there and Thompson isn't winning us football games. Has nothing to do with "hate", it has to do with the facts. Bottom Line: Thompson isn't helping this team win football games. That is the reason the Packers play the game right? The reason you are a fan right?

Also, Bottom Line: Justin Harrell is a bust.
.
Remember folks, whatever you do, DO NOT have our own opinion, you will be tagged a "hater". Which of course is a convenient excuse for those that refuse to look at the facts.

Neither is Favre

[packers04]

you should be thanking ted thompson, ive heard he was a very integral part in mccarthy switching coordinators and going to the 3-4 defense. he realized bob sanders just wasnt cutting it... remember, ted thompson was a linebacker in the NFL for several years. he knows defense and he knows football.

[Fritz]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.


Below .500 football during his run, some pretty good drafting and young players, a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work, oh and ZERO superbowls... I'm a results person and so far they are not there.. the NFC championship game was nice, but if thats it... time to move on.

4-12 - I don't consider HIS fault...that's as much on Sherman as anyone
8-8 - Building blocks
13-3 - winning team ahead of schedule
6-10 - major injuries, faulty defensive calls, favre drama...

31-33 as a GM...take out the 4-12, and you're 27-21. as far as the new defensive scheme, um, HELLO...that's the Head Coaches job, NOT the GM's.

if you don't see what's he's truly done in building a solid young team for years to come, you need to move to Chicago and join their bandwagon. I just don't get how you don't see the benefits of what he's done here. I can't wait to revisit this thread at the end of next season, just to laugh at the anti-TT.

Normally I'm not a rub-your-face-in-it kind of guy (unless I'm house training a puppy), but the bile of the anti-
TT faction - some of it, anyway - is over the top. You can laugh at the anti-TT faction if the Packers do well this season, but already I have read one poster saying that even if the Packers do well this year, it will be sheer luck.

So the anti-TT faction, like most of us, will simply interpret the facts in a way that supports their world view.

[packers04]

i just wanted to say i slightly disagree with th87, as i thnk the packers and ted t. are now starting Phase 3. This culminates in being more picky in who they target in the draft. They'll look to get about 3-8 players throughout the draft that they love and go after them.

[Cheesehead Craig]

This certainly is a big year for TT. Time for his building project to show what it can do. The young roster is getting into their 3rd and 4th years so they need to start producing. The moves to bring Raji and Matthews in were huge and they need to be playmakers as this team really in need of some. I daresay that a non-playoff year will make a good portion of the natives restless.

[ThunderDan]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. There are plenty of quarterbacks you could have plugged in and had similar success. A big reason for this success was Jennings. How many receivers could you plug in and get the kind of success Jennings had? Not many.

So are you saying that Brett Favre was a plug-in QB for the last 16 years with the Packers?

Obviously if you can find an average A Rodgers to pass for over 4,000 yards and 90+ QB rating we should have been able to find someone the last 16 years to replace that over-hyped Brett Favre.

Give me a break. Favre was special and A Rod gives me hope that we may have pulled off the SF Montana-Young transition.

[cpk1994]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

[Partial]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.


Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

[cpk1994]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and their Super Bowl rings say needing a a top guy at QB, especially to get to the SB, is BS.

[cpk1994]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.


Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.Niether is Jay Cutler.

[Partial]

Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

I disagree. Nowhere did I say that Vince Young is a blue chipper or a top 3-4 qb. He isn't yet. I, emphasis on I, think that he will be. So far, he has shown as knack for the big play. He can hydrate himself with as much coffee as he'd like because he is a closer. One cannot like the mental issues that he's had, but I, again an emphasis on I, suspect he'll get over them and go on to have a very good NFL career.

He's not a blue chipper yet. I think he will be in time. I don't think Rodgers will be because he's not as athletic, as fast, or as big. Young will need to throw the ball significantly better if he wants to get to that level.

If I'm picking a team to win today, I'd probably pick Rodgers over Young for one game. If we're playing twenty times, I'd probably pick Young over Rodgers. If I'm playing 200 times over 10 years, I'm definitely picking Young.

[sharpe1027]

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?


IIRC, blue chip is usually used to describe a low-risk and highly sought after recruit moving from one level (high-school/college) to the next (colleg/pros). I think Rodgers is thought of by most (or would be as a free agent) as highly sought after and low-risk.

What is the point of limitting your definition to at most 4 players at a position? It seems an overly restrictive and self-serving definition that few people would have arrived at. Seems pretty arbitrary and not a very partial analysis, IMHO. Maybe it is just me.

[cheesner]

Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

I disagree. Nowhere did I say that Vince Young is a blue chipper or a top 3-4 qb. He isn't yet. I, emphasis on I, think that he will be. So far, he has shown as knack for the big play. He can hydrate himself with as much coffee as he'd like because he is a closer. One cannot like the mental issues that he's had, but I, again an emphasis on I, suspect he'll get over them and go on to have a very good NFL career.

He's not a blue chipper yet. I think he will be in time. I don't think Rodgers will be because he's not as athletic, as fast, or as big. Young will need to throw the ball significantly better if he wants to get to that level.

If I'm picking a team to win today, I'd probably pick Rodgers over Young for one game. If we're playing twenty times, I'd probably pick Young over Rodgers. If I'm playing 200 times over 10 years, I'm definitely picking Young.WOW!

You would take a guy with emotional problems, who can't beat out an old journey man QB while in his 4th season, vrs a guy who in his first year starting was #6 in passer rating and #4 in yards and by all accounts and perceptions, is a great team leader? And when you consider it was only his first year, this kid is very good now - and I think will be great very soon. Not sure if I put him in the top 5 just yet, but he is damn close.

Vince Young over AR? That is the worst football opinion I think I have ever read here. I think this must be class 101, 'Franchise QBs' at the Matt Millen school of team building.

[Brandon494]

Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

I disagree. Nowhere did I say that Vince Young is a blue chipper or a top 3-4 qb. He isn't yet. I, emphasis on I, think that he will be. So far, he has shown as knack for the big play. He can hydrate himself with as much coffee as he'd like because he is a closer. One cannot like the mental issues that he's had, but I, again an emphasis on I, suspect he'll get over them and go on to have a very good NFL career.

He's not a blue chipper yet. I think he will be in time. I don't think Rodgers will be because he's not as athletic, as fast, or as big. Young will need to throw the ball significantly better if he wants to get to that level.

If I'm picking a team to win today, I'd probably pick Rodgers over Young for one game. If we're playing twenty times, I'd probably pick Young over Rodgers. If I'm playing 200 times over 10 years, I'm definitely picking Young.

Mr. Partial, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

http://www.kevinfamous.com/Videos/billy%20madison.jpg[/img]

[Partial]

Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and their Super Bowl rings say needing a a top guy at QB, especially to get to the SB, is BS.

Again, why is everything an absolute with you? Sure, it can be done, but history shows it's not nearly as likely. Take this post I made about a month back of recent super bowl winners.



1993 - HOF QB
1994 - HOF QB
1995 - HOF QB
1996 - HOF QB
1997 - HOF QB
1998 - HOF QB
1999 - HOF QB
2000 - HOF QB
2001 - Not HOF QB
2002 - HOF QB
2003 - Not HOF QB
2004 - HOF QB
2005 - HOF QB
2006 - HOF QB
2007 - HOF QB
2008 - Not HOF QB
2009 - HOF QB

3/17, or 17% of the time in the past 17 years has a guy not bound for the HOF won a super bowl. The teams that didn't all had legendary defenses and dominating pass rush.

If the Packers had a dominant defense and running game like the Giants did, I could see A-Rod getting them to a super bowl, sure. If they don't though, no way, and that sort of defense is pretty gosh darn rare.

Pretty tough to dispute those statistics. I'll take my chances with the stud QB :D

Pretty telling numbers if I do say so myself.

To the rest of you: I hope you're going to be big enough people to eat all the crow you're throwing at me for having a differing opinion. Rodgers has made it through one season. We'll see how he does in another. Luckily for him, I think GJ will resign here and as a result he'll have a bonafide superstar to throw to (think Moss) and that will greatly help his numbers.

Javon Walker had one really good year, too, remember :D Lets certainly hope ARod doesn't catch a string of injuries like JWalk, but really, all it takes is one to get on that slippery slope.

[Fritz]

Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

I disagree. Nowhere did I say that Vince Young is a blue chipper or a top 3-4 qb. He isn't yet. I, emphasis on I, think that he will be. So far, he has shown as knack for the big play. He can hydrate himself with as much coffee as he'd like because he is a closer. One cannot like the mental issues that he's had, but I, again an emphasis on I, suspect he'll get over them and go on to have a very good NFL career.

He's not a blue chipper yet. I think he will be in time. I don't think Rodgers will be because he's not as athletic, as fast, or as big. Young will need to throw the ball significantly better if he wants to get to that level.

If I'm picking a team to win today, I'd probably pick Rodgers over Young for one game. If we're playing twenty times, I'd probably pick Young over Rodgers. If I'm playing 200 times over 10 years, I'm definitely picking Young.WOW!

You would take a guy with emotional problems, who can't beat out an old journey man QB while in his 4th season, vrs a guy who in his first year starting was #6 in passer rating and #4 in yards and by all accounts and perceptions, is a great team leader? And when you consider it was only his first year, this kid is very good now - and I think will be great very soon. Not sure if I put him in the top 5 just yet, but he is damn close.

Vince Young over AR? That is the worst football opinion I think I have ever read here. I think this must be class 101, 'Franchise QBs' at the Matt Millen school of team building.

He's got Al Davis doing a seminar in room 101 on wide receivers.

[RashanGary]

I believe good QB's that are on great teams for long periods of time end up in the HOF.

I don't believe great teams win the SB over and over because they have a great QB.



A great team that can continually sustain a top tier roster and has a stable QB situation is key. It just so happens that those good QB's that end up in great situations end up in a lot of big games and are in position to succeed so they become HOFers.

Chicken or the egg.


The one thing that is the same with 100% of these teams is that they are all great teams that are peaking in the post season. I'll take the great team peaking in the playoffs every time over the Favre led Packers or the Marino led dolphins.

[swede]

Mr. Partial, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

http://www.kevinfamous.com/Videos/billy%20madison.jpg[/img]


That shiv in the poop chute deserves its own word.

I'm thinking, "ShweepshaBAM!"

[sharpe1027]

Pretty telling numbers if I do say so myself.

To the rest of you: I hope you're going to be big enough people to eat all the crow you're throwing at me for having a differing opinion. Rodgers has made it through one season. We'll see how he does in another. Luckily for him, I think GJ will resign here and as a result he'll have a bonafide superstar to throw to (think Moss) and that will greatly help his numbers.

Javon Walker had one really good year, too, remember :D Lets certainly hope ARod doesn't catch a string of injuries like JWalk, but really, all it takes is one to get on that slippery slope.

I don't understand your point. So Rodgers isn't 100% guranteed. Big deal. There are more positive signs than negative signs at this point. Favre looked worse than Rodgers in his first year and he had one of the best wide receivers in the league.

What are you suggesting? Ditch Rodgers? For what? Frankly, you might end up being right after it is all said and done, but I really don't give a damn because your presonal assessment should have zero bearing on what the Packers should do.

[Partial]

I would suggest that they actively look to improve that spot whenever they have a chance, just like every other position on the team. I'd definitely adopt the Wolfe philosophy of drafting a QB annually.

[sharpe1027]

I would suggest that they actively look to improve that spot whenever they have a chance, just like every other position on the team. I'd definitely adopt the Wolfe philosophy of drafting a QB annually.

Way to state the obvious. If only you had just said that instead of trying to prove some abritrary definition of "elitness/blue chippyness"..... :wink:

[The Shadow]

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.

Ted Thompson is building a team that can -finally- compete for a championship, year after year. I wouldn't trade him for any other GM in the league.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and their Super Bowl rings say needing a a top guy at QB, especially to get to the SB, is BS.

Again, why is everything an absolute with you? Sure, it can be done, but history shows it's not nearly as likely. Take this post I made about a month back of recent super bowl winners.



1993 - HOF QB
1994 - HOF QB
1995 - HOF QB
1996 - HOF QB
1997 - HOF QB
1998 - HOF QB
1999 - HOF QB
2000 - HOF QB
2001 - Not HOF QB
2002 - HOF QB
2003 - Not HOF QB
2004 - HOF QB
2005 - HOF QB
2006 - HOF QB
2007 - HOF QB
2008 - Not HOF QB
2009 - HOF QB

3/17, or 17% of the time in the past 17 years has a guy not bound for the HOF won a super bowl. The teams that didn't all had legendary defenses and dominating pass rush.

If the Packers had a dominant defense and running game like the Giants did, I could see A-Rod getting them to a super bowl, sure. If they don't though, no way, and that sort of defense is pretty gosh darn rare.

Pretty tough to dispute those statistics. I'll take my chances with the stud QB :D



It is tough to dispute those statistics..especially when you make them up as you go along.

2009: Big Ben....mighty big assumption that he is a HOF QB.

2000: HOF? LOL There are numerous writers (and they count since they vote) who have said Warner isn't a HOF.

And how convenient of you to start with 93, wouldn't want to go back 2 years to include Hoss or Ryp. :oops:

More to the point...those numbers mean NOTHING. The game changed when they changed free agency.

[Partial]

Big Ben - I'd say 2 SB rings in 5 years, 3 championships games is pretty much a lock to go in. He has a good coach and a good young team around him. I would think his team will be back in contention again in the next 8 years or so. Another championship game and he's in imo.

Warner - Some reporters say he isn't. Sure. I'd believe it. A heck of a lot more then "some" say he is without a doubt in. MVP, 2x superbowl winner, 3x appearance. He's as much of a lock imo as Favre.

[ThunderDan]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.

If an average QB can throw for 4,000+ yards, why couldn't Favre the HOF QB throw for 5,000+ with the same offensive strategy?

Why don't you give Rodgers a break?

[sharpe1027]

Big Ben - I'd say 2 SB rings in 5 years, 3 championships games is pretty much a lock to go in. He has a good coach and a good young team around him. I would think his team will be back in contention again in the next 8 years or so. Another championship game and he's in imo.

Warner - Some reporters say he isn't. Sure. I'd believe it. A heck of a lot more then "some" say he is without a doubt in. MVP, 2x superbowl winner, 3x appearance. He's as much of a lock imo as Favre.

By your own definition of what justifies acceptance to the HoF you have rendered your entire argument circular. Congratulations. :lol:

[Partial]

If an average QB can throw for 4,000+ yards, why couldn't Favre the HOF QB throw for 5,000+ with the same offensive strategy?

Why don't you give Rodgers a break?

Who cares how many yards he threw for? Don't you agree their is a finite amount of yards one can throw for?

[ThunderDan]

Warner - Some reporters say he isn't. Sure. I'd believe it. A heck of a lot more then "some" say he is without a doubt in. MVP, 2x superbowl winner, 3x appearance. He's as much of a lock imo as Favre.

Disappeared for years in the middle of his career. The player he replaced and his replacement both put up similar numbers for the Greatest Show On Turf.

Favre was a consistant playoff caliber team QB year after year.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Big Ben - I'd say 2 SB rings in 5 years, 3 championships games is pretty much a lock to go in. He has a good coach and a good young team around him. I would think his team will be back in contention again in the next 8 years or so. Another championship game and he's in imo.

Warner - Some reporters say he isn't. Sure. I'd believe it. A heck of a lot more then "some" say he is without a doubt in. MVP, 2x superbowl winner, 3x appearance. He's as much of a lock imo as Favre.

Your opinion isn't valid.

Ben: He has 2 rings...but, the first one...look at his numbers and what he did...not impressive.

Winning SBs isn't the sole criteria...otherwise the Snake would be in the HOF.

Warner: Some proof about "heck of a lot more." A couple of good/great seasons doesn't cut it.

[Joemailman]

Beginning with his breakout year in 1999, Warner has had 4 outstanding years, 1 decent year, and 5 years where he has been a non-starter or just not very good. An interesting an unusual career, but not HOF material, at least not yet.

[ThunderDan]

If an average QB can throw for 4,000+ yards, why couldn't Favre the HOF QB throw for 5,000+ with the same offensive strategy?

Why don't you give Rodgers a break?

Who cares how many yards he threw for? Don't you agree their is a finite amount of yards one can throw for?

I do. Without yardage the offense doesn't move and your team looses. I absolutely agree there is a finite amount of yardage a QB can throw for. That's what's special about Rodgers throwing for close to that cap.

Favre threw for 4,000+ yards, 5 out of 16 years.

[Partial]

I do. Without yardage the offense doesn't move and your team losses. I absolutely agree there is a finite amount of yardage a QB can throw for. That's what's special about Rodgers throwing for close to that cap.

Favre threw for 4,000+ yards, 5 out of 16 years.

I reiterate.. who cares how many yards you throw for? The Packers couldn't run the ball to save their life last year. There is something to be said for balance.

Furthermore, who cares? It's easy to move the ball inside the 20s.

I don't see why Favre is being brought up at all, nor do I see how Rodgers passing for 4k yards is relevant at all. I personally couldn't give a crap if he threw for 2000 or 4000.

[ThunderDan]

I do. Without yardage the offense doesn't move and your team losses. I absolutely agree there is a finite amount of yardage a QB can throw for. That's what's special about Rodgers throwing for close to that cap.

Favre threw for 4,000+ yards, 5 out of 16 years.

I reiterate.. who cares how many yards you throw for? The Packers couldn't run the ball to save their life last year. There is something to be said for balance.

Furthermore, who cares? It's easy to move the ball inside the 20s.

I don't see why Favre is being brought up at all, nor do I see how Rodgers passing for 4k yards is relevant at all. I personally couldn't give a crap if he threw for 2000 or 4000.

I am sure the Bears feel the same way about their QBs horrible numbers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Beginning with his breakout year in 1999, Warner has had 4 outstanding years, 1 decent year, and 5 years where he has been a non-starter or just not very good. An interesting an unusual career, but not HOF material, at least not yet.

QFT.

What is funny is watching Partial deride Arod because he had stellar supporting cast....but, then ignore the fact that Warner had HOFs in Faulk, Holt, Bruce....and very good 3 and 4 recievers in Hakim and Proehl.

And, a brilliant OC at the time in Martz...and HOF coach in Vermeil.

[ThunderDan]

I do. Without yardage the offense doesn't move and your team losses. I absolutely agree there is a finite amount of yardage a QB can throw for. That's what's special about Rodgers throwing for close to that cap.

Favre threw for 4,000+ yards, 5 out of 16 years.

I reiterate.. who cares how many yards you throw for? The Packers couldn't run the ball to save their life last year. There is something to be said for balance.

Furthermore, who cares? It's easy to move the ball inside the 20s.

I don't see why Favre is being brought up at all, nor do I see how Rodgers passing for 4k yards is relevant at all. I personally couldn't give a crap if he threw for 2000 or 4000.

Let's see ... if I throw for 2,000 yards its a hell of a lot harder to win than if I throw for 4,000 yards.

Once again I care. To say yardage gained isn't important is plain stupid. You need to move the ball to score.

I brought up Favre because you said Rodgers was a plug-in QB. He had similar numbers to Favre in 2007; does that make Favre a plug-in QB?

[Partial]

Beginning with his breakout year in 1999, Warner has had 4 outstanding years, 1 decent year, and 5 years where he has been a non-starter or just not very good. An interesting an unusual career, but not HOF material, at least not yet.

QFT.

What is funny is watching Partial deride Arod because he had stellar supporting cast....but, then ignore the fact that Warner had HOFs in Faulk, Holt, Bruce....and very good 3 and 4 recievers in Hakim and Proehl.

And, a brilliant OC at the time in Martz...and HOF coach in Vermeil.

I'm not saying I necessarily think he is a star quarterback, I'm saying I think he has the awards and recognition that the HOF voters look for. Big difference. I don't think TAiks is anywhere near as good of a quarterback as a guy like Favre and he's still in.

[Joemailman]

Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and their Super Bowl rings say needing a a top guy at QB, especially to get to the SB, is BS.

Again, why is everything an absolute with you? Sure, it can be done, but history shows it's not nearly as likely. Take this post I made about a month back of recent super bowl winners.



1993 - HOF QB
1994 - HOF QB
1995 - HOF QB
1996 - HOF QB
1997 - HOF QB
1998 - HOF QB
1999 - HOF QB
2000 - HOF QB
2001 - Not HOF QB
2002 - HOF QB
2003 - Not HOF QB
2004 - HOF QB
2005 - HOF QB
2006 - HOF QB
2007 - HOF QB
2008 - Not HOF QB
2009 - HOF QB

3/17, or 17% of the time in the past 17 years has a guy not bound for the HOF won a super bowl. The teams that didn't all had legendary defenses and dominating pass rush.

If the Packers had a dominant defense and running game like the Giants did, I could see A-Rod getting them to a super bowl, sure. If they don't though, no way, and that sort of defense is pretty gosh darn rare.

Pretty tough to dispute those statistics. I'll take my chances with the stud QB :D

Pretty telling numbers if I do say so myself.

To the rest of you: I hope you're going to be big enough people to eat all the crow you're throwing at me for having a differing opinion. Rodgers has made it through one season. We'll see how he does in another. Luckily for him, I think GJ will resign here and as a result he'll have a bonafide superstar to throw to (think Moss) and that will greatly help his numbers.

Javon Walker had one really good year, too, remember :D Lets certainly hope ARod doesn't catch a string of injuries like JWalk, but really, all it takes is one to get on that slippery slope.

Although I think you throw around the HOF label a bit loosely, I agree with your overall point. Having an outstanding quarterback greatly improves your Super Bowl chances. As I said in another thread, I think that is because outstanding quarterbacks have longer shelf lives than outstanding defenses or running games. A great quarterback may give you a window of opportunity of a decade or more where you have an opportunity to go to the Super Bowl. The window of opportunity you have with a great defense or running game tends to be much shorter. Hence the Vikings' interest in Favre. They know the window of opportunity they have with the Williams' and Adrian Peterson could close very quickly. I think that also explains TT drafting Aaron Rodgers when he did. He wanted to be set up for long term success after Favre, and felt he had to be strong at quarterback to do it.

[Partial]

Where did I say he's a plugin quarterback? I'm not getting into this again. I have better things to do than debate with people who don't thoroughly read my posts. I've said countless times he's an above average quarterback they can win with given an incredible amount of talent surrounding him. He's not John Elway but he's not Trent Dilfer either.

[Bossman641]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

Why would one have a difficult time ranking Rodgers as a Blue Chipper? All he did was throw for over 4,000 yards with 32 total touchdowns and 13 INTs...

And? He has a stunning supporting cast. Do you think he's a top 4-5 player at his position in the league? Let's hold the phone before we rank in with PMans and TBrades. He's not even close.


People constantly underestimate how good a season he had. Wins and losses are a team effort. The team had a bad season. The defense in particular had a terrible season as evidenced by the decision to fire just about all of the coaches and change the scheme. Stats are the best way to judge an individual player's performance, and Rodgers' are right up there with just about anyone's....

I wouldn't call Jennings "the team's best player by far." I would say Rodgers is the team's best player, but it's close. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. There are plenty of quarterbacks you could have plugged in and had similar success. A big reason for this success was Jennings. How many receivers could you plug in and get the kind of success Jennings had? Not many.

[ThunderDan]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. There are plenty of quarterbacks you could have plugged in and had similar success. A big reason for this success was Jennings. How many receivers could you plug in and get the kind of success Jennings had? Not many.

How about right there!!!

[Partial]

Fair enough. Yeah, i'd say either guy could get plugged in and put up big stats with the offensive talent. just about anyone could imo. I don't think they get into the playoffs or championship game with a chump at QB, though. But I bet he'd have good stats! :D

[ThunderDan]

Fair enough. Yeah, i'd say either guy could get plugged in and put up big stats with the offensive talent. just about anyone could imo. I don't think they get into the playoffs or championship game with a chump at QB, though. But I bet he'd have good stats! :D

Well at least now you're admitting to lying. At least you manned up once.

[Scott Campbell]

If an average QB can throw for 4,000+ yards, why couldn't Favre the HOF QB throw for 5,000+ with the same offensive strategy?

Why don't you give Rodgers a break?

Who cares how many yards he threw for?


Sounds like a good poll question.

[hoosier]

What I want to know is, why are so many people taking the bait and debating this nonsense about Rodgers? :lol: After a moment's thought I think I know the answer: offseason.

[pbmax]

I reiterate.. who cares how many yards you throw for? The Packers couldn't run the ball to save their life last year. There is something to be said for balance.

Furthermore, who cares? It's easy to move the ball inside the 20s.

I don't see why Favre is being brought up at all, nor do I see how Rodgers passing for 4k yards is relevant at all. I personally couldn't give a crap if he threw for 2000 or 4000.
So your point is that a QB who HAS to throw because a team can't run is just racking up meaningless numbers, while the QB who has a running game is racking up truly meaningful passing yards, because the come in addition to a powerful run game? This is the argument?

P, you make many a great point. But then there are statements of non-fact like this:

It's easy to move the ball inside the 20s.
Points in 2007: 435 (4th),
Points in 2008: 419 (5th) [edited to correct year]

The Packers couldn't run the ball to save their life last year.
2007 running game: 388 attempts, 1597 yards, 13 TDs, 4.1 Avg (Ranks: 28, 21, 13, 12)
2008 Running game: 437 attempts, 1805 yards, 11 TDs, 4.1 Avg (Ranks: 14, 17, 24, 18)

The Packers were also clearly a better short yardage team last year than 2007. Someone posted the numbers for 3rd and 4th and short, but I have never been able to find them online.

[pbmax]

Also about 2008 defensive injuries. Jenkins, Barnett and Al missed games. And I should remind everyone, including myself that Al ruptured his spleen and came back and played. Al is great. We should all grow up to be Al, dreads/braids and all.

But the Packers also had other issues: Hawk had a bad chest or rib cage thing, Pickett had a bad arm, Bigby sprained something and Harrell had a bad everything. JH missed even more time than in 2007. I mention him only because I don't think Thompson carried out his offseason like he did (trading Williams) if he had known prior to April that Harrell was toast.

So while I agree that you cannot blame "2008: The Season Without A Run Defense" entirely on injuries, there were more than just three guys affected. Perhaps this year we find out if Thompson has gotten good depth and the scheme/coaching was the issue, or if there simply not enough good players to fill in.

[SnakeLH2006]

Thompson is an excellent evaluator of talent. He really hasn't made a terrible draft choice in his time in Green Bay. Sure, he has made some that didn't pan out...but he doesn't have any BJ Sander type pickups where any bum off the street could've made a better pick.

That said...Thompson hasn't proven he can make the kind of acquisitions to put a team over the top, like a Ron Wolf could. I'm not sure he would be my #1 choice as a GM right now...but he'd certainly have a strong argument to be in the top 5.

Cory Rodgers? http://www.rtsports.com/php/draft-guide-player.php?PN=11977

LOL. Just fucking with ya, Leaper, but overall Snake likes TT as a GM. He's shrewd (we'll never overpay or get in cap hell...definite plus) but he's not the godsend so many think he is in drafting. Throw enough darts at a wall, some will stick.

JSO did an article about his late round pics a month ago...pretty lackluster after round 4. Filler mostly, but that is what we needed to fill our roster in the cap purge after Shermy. I do think he's got good instincts with the draft, but Sporting News hit it on the head a month ago...49 picks...1 blue chipper all-star (Jennings....albeit ARod is close and love him). I'm not bashing TT, but his gloves off treatment of god-dom around here is not as true as some may think on here (not saying you Leaper).

I for one, really loved this draft this year, as it was everything I had hoped, but then again, I'm not an NFL exec. so I'm prob. wrong, but for once TT addressed needs cuz getting 20 late rounders wouldn't help build depth cuz those marginal/potential sleeper prospects are/were there for this year.

He knows that, but really hasn't hit on any big time players if you really look at his later rounds (after 1 and 2) or waiver wire guys like Wolf did (Dorsey, Freeman, Gilbert Brown, Henderson, etc.) that went Pro Bowl. I'm not dissing TT so much as he's an above average draft analyst, but not the godsend so many typecast into being...

The proof is in the pudding, and barring injury Raji and Matthews plug 2 holes potentially on D....and am happy, but damn if TT is not flawless. Go big or go home y'all. Let's win a SuperBowl. Shit, we made playoffs/or won 9-10 games yearly for 15 years, but let's do it again. Proof is in TT's pudding hopefully.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I don't understand why some guys don't respect the General Manager of the Packers.

Compared to Mike Sherman he is pretty good. Some of you complain about the performance of the coach he hired but very little on anything other than that.

Some of you need to wake up that the Packers no longer have to rummage through the scrap heap of free agency for players. Ted has given a few a second chance to perform but knows they really are not needed.

The losing of 2005 is long ago.

Show some respect for the Packers' GM even if you are so misguided as to withold your affection.

[Fritz]

Partial, you just keep getting the crap beat out of you whenever a discussion of Aaron Rodgers begins, but you keep on coming back.

[Bossman641]

Partial, you just keep getting the crap beat out of you whenever a discussion of Aaron Rodgers begins, but you keep on coming back.

And I keep falling into his discussions everytime even though I don't want to.

I can't quit you Partial.

[Partial]

Partial, you just keep getting the crap beat out of you whenever a discussion of Aaron Rodgers begins, but you keep on coming back.

I feel like I'm doing most of the beating :wink:

Bossman, you make me blush :D :oops:

[Fritz]

Partial, you just keep getting the crap beat out of you whenever a discussion of Aaron Rodgers begins, but you keep on coming back.

I feel like I'm doing most of the beating :wink:

Bossman, you make me blush :D :oops:

I'd say "taking" would be a better word choice. . . :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Partial,

I am lost. Are you arguing that Rodgers can't become a superbowl winning QB or just that he isn't there yet? If it is ther first, you admit that one year is not enough to judge a QB, which makes you a hypocrit. If it is the second, thank you captain obvious...

I do not understand what you are trying to say, or what you think the purpose of your arbitrarily defined categories of eliteness are good for.

In three sentences or less...what is your point? :?:

[cpk1994]

Partial,

I am lost. Are you arguing that Rodgers can't become a superbowl winning QB or just that he isn't there yet? If it is ther first, you admit that one year is not enough to judge a QB, which makes you a hypocrit. If it is the second, thank you captain obvious...

I do not understand what you are trying to say, or what you think the purpose of your arbitrarily defined categories of eliteness are good for.

In three sentences or less...what is your point? :?:I think he pretty much believes that ARod can't do the job. After all ARod is merely average in his mind even though the stats prove him wrong.

[Gunakor]

Partial,

I am lost. Are you arguing that Rodgers can't become a superbowl winning QB or just that he isn't there yet? If it is ther first, you admit that one year is not enough to judge a QB, which makes you a hypocrit. If it is the second, thank you captain obvious...

I do not understand what you are trying to say, or what you think the purpose of your arbitrarily defined categories of eliteness are good for.

In three sentences or less...what is your point? :?:I think he pretty much believes that ARod can't do the job. After all ARod is merely average in his mind even though the stats prove him wrong.

He's above average now. Haven't you been following?

[retailguy]

I think he pretty much believes that ARod can't do the job. After all ARod is merely average in his mind even though the stats prove him wrong.

Well, he's used the term "average" but he's also used the term "top 12", which to me at least is a fairer assumption.

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.

To be truthful, Arod has more promise than production at this point, but all the signs look favorable, and I expect good things from him this year. It would seem that Partial does as well, though to be fair he seems a little more pessimistic than me. :wink:

I'd venture to say CPK if we "picked and chose" your words the same way you do with others, you'd be damn unhappy.... :idea:

[Scott Campbell]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.


I'm not following the math.

[Partial]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.


I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

[sharpe1027]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.


I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

You haven't answered my question, but I don't follow that math either. 32 is not the correct number.

I guess if you exclude all QBs that sucked bad enough to be benched or that were injured. That, of course, just means you are necessarily skewing the data towards the best QBs.

[retailguy]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.


I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

You haven't answered my question, but I don't follow that math either. 32 is not the correct number.

I guess if you exclude all QBs that sucked bad enough to be benched or that were injured. That, of course, just means you are necessarily skewing the data towards the best QBs.

Look, you could use many different "measurements", but lets be realistic. Barring injury you'd have 32 starting qb's. My comment was based on what Partial has said previously, and I think he's even named off the other QB's he believed were better.

top 12 out of 32 is 62%. If you want a "math battle" this is probably the wrong place for that.

[Partial]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.


I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

You haven't answered my question, but I don't follow that math either. 32 is not the correct number.

I guess if you exclude all QBs that sucked bad enough to be benched or that were injured. That, of course, just means you are necessarily skewing the data towards the best QBs.

What? 32? There are 32 teams in the NFL. That's just counting starters.

[cpk1994]

Partial,

I am lost. Are you arguing that Rodgers can't become a superbowl winning QB or just that he isn't there yet? If it is ther first, you admit that one year is not enough to judge a QB, which makes you a hypocrit. If it is the second, thank you captain obvious...

I do not understand what you are trying to say, or what you think the purpose of your arbitrarily defined categories of eliteness are good for.

In three sentences or less...what is your point? :?:I think he pretty much believes that ARod can't do the job. After all ARod is merely average in his mind even though the stats prove him wrong.

He's above average now. Haven't you been following?Yes I have. I think he changed to above average becuase he was tired of the beating he recieved and couldn't come up with another argument to get crushed.

[cpk1994]

I think he pretty much believes that ARod can't do the job. After all ARod is merely average in his mind even though the stats prove him wrong.

Well, he's used the term "average" but he's also used the term "top 12", which to me at least is a fairer assumption.

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.

To be truthful, Arod has more promise than production at this point, but all the signs look favorable, and I expect good things from him this year. It would seem that Partial does as well, though to be fair he seems a little more pessimistic than me. :wink:

I'd venture to say CPK if we "picked and chose" your words the same way you do with others, you'd be damn unhappy.... :idea:But in this case I wasn't "picking and choosing". He repeatedly used the term "merely average" and stats were shown to repeateldy show his term wasn't accurate. He would then change his arguemt only to have that shot down. This was and still is a very consistent pattern with him. Hardly picking and choosing.

[retailguy]

But in this case I wasn't "picking and choosing". He repeatedly used the term "merely average" and stats were shown to repeateldy show his term wasn't accurate. He would then change his arguemt only to have that shot down. This was and still is a very consistent pattern with him. Hardly picking and choosing.

Wholeheartedly disagree with this. This ridiculous "battle" over Arod has been going on for months.

Partial has made some ridiculous statements largely in defense of his opinion about AROD. You guys have capitalized on those "defenses" and largely ignored his original point, which wasn't that unreasonable. He even named the 11 qb's that he thought were better. Yet you cleverly forget that, don't you?

Like it or not, it's his opinion. You've got 16 games to "evaluate Arod". More data is needed ON BOTH SIDES. Until then, you ARE picking and choosing, and thats even ignorning your "in this case" comment which if you pick a particular case, by default you ARE picking and choosing. :wink:

[sharpe1027]

What? 32? There are 32 teams in the NFL. That's just counting starters.

There were more than 32 starting QBs last year.

You still haven't answered my question.

[cpk1994]

But in this case I wasn't "picking and choosing". He repeatedly used the term "merely average" and stats were shown to repeateldy show his term wasn't accurate. He would then change his arguemt only to have that shot down. This was and still is a very consistent pattern with him. Hardly picking and choosing.

Wholeheartedly disagree with this. This ridiculous "battle" over Arod has been going on for months.

Partial has made some ridiculous statements largely in defense of his opinion about AROD. You guys have capitalized on those "defenses" and largely ignored his original point, which wasn't that unreasonable. He even named the 11 qb's that he thought were better. Yet you cleverly forget that, don't you?

Like it or not, it's his opinion. You've got 16 games to "evaluate Arod". More data is needed ON BOTH SIDES. Until then, you ARE picking and choosing, and thats even ignorning your "in this case" comment which if you pick a particular case, by default you ARE picking and choosing. :wink:I haven't forgot. He claimed ARod was merely average and then said he was Top 12. Top 12 is not merely average. That's above average. That's why he got bashed repeatdly. He was clearly contradicting himself, and when called on it, he got even more ridiculous with his "defenses" and changing to new arguments when old ones got demolished.

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

[retailguy]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.

[sharpe1027]

Look, you could use many different "measurements", but lets be realistic. Barring injury you'd have 32 starting qb's. My comment was based on what Partial has said previously, and I think he's even named off the other QB's he believed were better.

top 12 out of 32 is 62%. If you want a "math battle" this is probably the wrong place for that.

Not true. Crappy QBs get benched. If you exclude all of them, and their replacements you are skewing the numbers.Not that it matters.

I fail to understand what the point is. Frankly, you can't realistically rank them because for the most part you are comparing apples to oranges. What the point of partial's ranking system? Frankly, I don't care whether Rodgers is 32 on his ranking scale. Ranking for the sake of ranking...??

Once again, in three sentences or less, Partial, what is the point of this discussion?

[cpk1994]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

[retailguy]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

[cpk1994]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.Hasselbeck is injured and on the decline. Flacoo rode a great D to the AFC title game but really wasn't great at all. Ryan would be the closest to Rodgers and 9 on my list, but Rodgers gets the edge becuase he managed to pass for over 4000 yards despite the revolving door that was the OL and periodic brainfarts from M3.

[Zool]

So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco

Every day of every week of this season and the next 10.

[retailguy]

I get both of your points related to Ryan and Flacco. However, if you're going to rank on "potential" you've got to include "wins". You can say Flacco rode a good defense, but fairly that's only part of the picture. He played well in stretches, and led his team to two playoff victories.

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

CPK, I disagree about Hasselbeck. Multiple reports pronounce him healed, and provided they are accurate, I don't think you'll see the "decline" that you've forecasted. Also, they've had a bit of the injury bug up there, and if you give credit to Rodgers for the team performance then you have to give credit to Hasselbeck for the same things too.

Hasselbeck has a defined history of great performance and stability. Much longer, and more reliable than the limited data on Rodgers. To "bump" him based on injuries would be fair, if there were no opinions that he was fine, but there are, and you have little basis for the declines. Unless you're using "homerism". That in itself is FINE, but castigating Partial for lack of "homerism" is stupid.

In summary, your viewpoint really isn't that different than Partial's. You are making just as many assumptions to get to your position as he is, and in the end, both of you might be wrong.

Also, you've completely ignored Warner. While I expect Warner to decline this year, he's got better receivers than just about anybody in the league. Warner has a questionable past "body of work", however, is proven with good receivers and a good offensive game plan. His results could be substantially better than Rodgers this year, though for long-term Rodgers clearly has upside that Warner doesn't have.

[Zool]

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

Agreed, but you asked an opinion. Maybe not directly of me but I gave it anyways.

[retailguy]

Look, you could use many different "measurements", but lets be realistic. Barring injury you'd have 32 starting qb's. My comment was based on what Partial has said previously, and I think he's even named off the other QB's he believed were better.

top 12 out of 32 is 62%. If you want a "math battle" this is probably the wrong place for that.

Not true. Crappy QBs get benched. If you exclude all of them, and their replacements you are skewing the numbers.Not that it matters.

I fail to understand what the point is. Frankly, you can't realistically rank them because for the most part you are comparing apples to oranges. What the point of partial's ranking system? Frankly, I don't care whether Rodgers is 32 on his ranking scale. Ranking for the sake of ranking...??

Once again, in three sentences or less, Partial, what is the point of this discussion?

Sharpe - you've entered the domain of "That depends on what "is" really means".

In the offseason, NO ONE is injured, yet. We can talk about the "projected" 32 starters and it would be reasonable to rank them. You want to change the "denominator" during the season, fine, but last I checked it was May. No one slipped on a McDonalds bag yet, so the 32 forecasted starters are still the 32 forcasted starters.

[retailguy]

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

Agreed, but you asked an opinion. Maybe not directly of me but I gave it anyways.

FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion. Just pointing out that there are other "valid opinions", and having them doesn't make you a fool. I'm sure Baltimore fans are more excited about his upside than we may be. As they should be. He looks much much better than a lot of guys starting this year.

And I do appreciate your response. :P

[cpk1994]

I get both of your points related to Ryan and Flacco. However, if you're going to rank on "potential" you've got to include "wins". You can say Flacco rode a good defense, but fairly that's only part of the picture. He played well in stretches, and led his team to two playoff victories.

Forecasting "potential", Zool, is an inexact science at best, and your opinion is no different than Partials. As I said earlier, more data points are needed.

CPK, I disagree about Hasselbeck. Multiple reports pronounce him healed, and provided they are accurate, I don't think you'll see the "decline" that you've forecasted. Also, they've had a bit of the injury bug up there, and if you give credit to Rodgers for the team performance then you have to give credit to Hasselbeck for the same things too.

Hasselbeck has a defined history of great performance and stability. Much longer, and more reliable than the limited data on Rodgers. To "bump" him based on injuries would be fair, if there were no opinions that he was fine, but there are, and you have little basis for the declines. Unless you're using "homerism". That in itself is FINE, but castigating Partial for lack of "homerism" is stupid.

In summary, your viewpoint really isn't that different than Partial's. You are making just as many assumptions to get to your position as he is, and in the end, both of you might be wrong.

Also, you've completely ignored Warner. While I expect Warner to decline this year, he's got better receivers than just about anybody in the league. Warner has a questionable past "body of work", however, is proven with good receivers and a good offensive game plan. His results could be substantially better than Rodgers this year, though for long-term Rodgers clearly has upside that Warner doesn't have.I haven't ignored Warner. Warner is there with Rodgers, Ryan and even Hasselbeck. Warner and Rodgers I see as similar with Rodgers getting the edge due to age. Hasselbeck and company may prnounce him fine, but back injuries aren't that easy to get over.

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

[retailguy]

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

I think that's a debatable point and that's why I entered this discussion.

Personally, I think you're a lot like Partial, just on the other side of the debate. Kind of like "anti-twins".

For the record, my ranking aren't that different than yours but I'd rank Rodgers down a few spots because I value past performance higher than "projections".

I have the same type of back trouble that Hasselbeck has, and if he's done what the docs say he should do, he will be fine this year. It will eventually drive him into retirement, but he can manage it for a while, certainly longer than this year with the availability of good trainers, doctors, and other personnel and medication. Don't count him out...

[mraynrand]

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

I think that's a debatable point and that's why I entered this discussion.

Personally, I think you're a lot like Partial, just on the other side of the debate. Kind of like "anti-twins".

For the record, my ranking aren't that different than yours but I'd rank Rodgers down a few spots because I value past performance higher than "projections".

I have the same type of back trouble that Hasselbeck has, and if he's done what the docs say he should do, he will be fine this year. It will eventually drive him into retirement, but he can manage it for a while, certainly longer than this year with the availability of good trainers, doctors, and other personnel and medication. Don't count him out...

Are you going to get pummeled and sacked the way he is this year? If so, you both should retire and have a few mixed drinks together.
http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=17598&start=0

[retailguy]

Are you going to get pummeled and sacked the way he is this year? If so, you both should retire and have a few mixed drinks together.
http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=17598&start=0

Don't know, it depends on how crabby my wife is. :wink:

I think the bigger question related to Hasselbeck is the health of Walter Jones. If Walter is OK, I think Hasselbeck will be fine. With or without the Vodka.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I get both of your points related to Ryan and Flacco. However, if you're going to rank on "potential" you've got to include "wins". You can say Flacco rode a good defense, but fairly that's only part of the picture. He played well in stretches, and led his team to two playoff victories.
I would disagree with you on Flacco. He didn't lead his team to two playoff victories, he was simply along for the ride of the defense.

WC game - 9/23 135 yds. The game was clearly won by the Balt D with 4 INTs and a fumble recovery.

Divisional Round - 11/22 161 yds 1 TD. TN turns the ball over twice inside the 20 of Balt. Again, the Balt D plays a much bigger role in the win then the offense.

Right now, Flacco is a game manager and I would clearly rate Rodgers ahead of him without hesitation.

[sharpe1027]

Sharpe - you've entered the domain of "That depends on what "is" really means".

In the offseason, NO ONE is injured, yet. We can talk about the "projected" 32 starters and it would be reasonable to rank them. You want to change the "denominator" during the season, fine, but last I checked it was May. No one slipped on a McDonalds bag yet, so the 32 forecasted starters are still the 32 forcasted starters.

I see. So this discussion is purely hypothetical predictions for next year. As partial has pointed out when confronted with Rodger's statitisics and other facts, it is too early to make judgments about Rodgers. Round and round we go this merry-go-round of arguing for the sake of being right.

Anyone one else want on? 8-)

[Partial]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

Not to mention Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb, etc.

[Partial]

I haven't ignored Warner. Warner is there with Rodgers, Ryan and even Hasselbeck. Warner and Rodgers I see as similar with Rodgers getting the edge due to age. Hasselbeck and company may prnounce him fine, but back injuries aren't that easy to get over.

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

Why are you factoring in age at all? This isn't projecting who is going to be the best quarterback for the next 5 years. If so, you certainly have to start to examine Mannings age, etc.

The fact that you're accounting age in shows that you're speculating on the future versus what we've seen now.

As for tossing for 4 grand of yards... What about Ryan taking a team picking #3 the previous year to the playoffs, including beating Rodgers on his home turf with the super PR fans there making Lambeau 3x as loud as normal? There isn't a lot of sense in that move..

What about Dono McNabb? Dude was absolutely beyond lights out the second half of the year. He is absolutely a play maker and deserves to be top 9 in your list (even with Age considered). He put up these big time numbers with a receiving corps that can't hold the Packers jock

What about Warner? Slightly better receiving corps sure, but not nearly as good from the TE, RB or OL spots. He also put up better numbers, including staging late game heroics in the super bowl and was very good in the playoffs.

Your scale is showing it's bias. The whole age thing is being factored in when it shouldn't be, and unfairly at that. I don't think there is a single person who wouldn't have Dono Mac as a top 10 QB when healthy. His problems are injury based, not performance based.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

When you start saying that the Cards WRs are "slightly better" than ours...it explains everything.

[cpk1994]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

Not to mention Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb, etc.I already mentioned why I put Rodgers ahead of Warner. As for McNabb, He is in that lump of QB's that are similar to Rodgers and while McNabb got to the Playoffs last year, it was becuase of their defense, something ROdgers wasn't given. Add to that agin the revolving door OL M3 put there, passing for 4000+ yards makes it easy for me to place Rodgers on top of that group. And before you ask, Palmer blows and only amentally retarded monkey would put "Mental Case" Young ahead of Rodgers.

[Partial]

So basically, you don't have any rational. You haven't looked up their stats or their performance. Right. McNabb is the 15th best quarterback in the NFL

<ty> :roll: :oops: </ty>

[Partial]

When you start saying that the Cards WRs are "slightly better" than ours...it explains everything.

Fitz is a top 5 receiver. Jennings is a top 5 receiver. Bolden is a top 10 receiver. Driver is a top 15-17 receiver.

Not a huge difference. Both have 1a and 1b. You greatly over-value Bolden. I remember when you were explaning why he was the better receiver, yet a single team would not pony up a 1st to the Cards for him.

I don't know for sure because I don't watch the Cards much, but you really think Breston is that much better than Jordy or Jones?!? Our depth is spectacular.

[cpk1994]

So basically, you don't have any rational. You haven't looked up their stats or their performance. Right. McNabb is the 15th best quarterback in the NFL

<ty> :roll: :oops: </ty>How do even know I have Donovan F. McNabb ranked 15th? I only listed the Top 8 and have a whole group that I could list from 9-12. You really love making an ass of yourself, don't you?

[Partial]

So basically, you don't have any rational. You haven't looked up their stats or their performance. Right. McNabb is the 15th best quarterback in the NFL

<ty> :roll: :oops: </ty>How do even know I have Donovan F. McNabb ranked 15th? I only listed the Top 8 and have a whole group that I could list from 9-12. You really love making an ass of yourself, don't you?

You've implied you lump a whole bunch of QB's with Rodgers, yet he leads the back, despite NOT showing up in the clutch and going 6-10? He's ahead of Matt Ryan, who guides a team with worse personal to the playoffs as a Rookie (do you remember how bad Rodgers was a rookie?!?). Then, you dock played who are clearly better than Rodgers now (more pro bowls, super bowl appearances, wins, etc) because of age?

Your list is a sham.

[Gunakor]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

Not to mention Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb, etc.

Warner has been lights out when playing with the top WR tandem in the NFL, both in Arizona and in St. Louis. On average teams, he was average.

McNabb is slightly better than garbage. 1 in 3 Philly fans will tell you the same thing. He had to be benched for a half of football before he realized he was just slightly better than garbage and started playing like a starting quarterback again. I really, really don't like McNabb.

[cpk1994]

So basically, you don't have any rational. You haven't looked up their stats or their performance. Right. McNabb is the 15th best quarterback in the NFL

<ty> :roll: :oops: </ty>How do even know I have Donovan F. McNabb ranked 15th? I only listed the Top 8 and have a whole group that I could list from 9-12. You really love making an ass of yourself, don't you?

You've implied you lump a whole bunch of QB's with Rodgers, yet he leads the back, despite NOT showing up in the clutch and going 6-10? He's ahead of Matt Ryan, who guides a team with worse personal to the playoffs as a Rookie (do you remember how bad Rodgers was a rookie?!?). Then, you dock played who are clearly better than Rodgers now (more pro bowls, super bowl appearances, wins, etc) because of age?

Your list is a sham.That's in your opinion. My list is based off of each QB' last year of production(Brady was on IR so I went back a year to get his latest performces). Also, I am not holding the fact that the defense and incompetent DC that Aaron had for support against him. That is why he oesn't have any clutch wins. He put the team in position to win time after time only to have the D blow it. 6-10 was not Rodgers's fault. Everybody sees that and agrees with that except one person: YOU. But I forgot that you are the almighty Partial aand that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you are wrong. The only thing that is a sham is you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

When you start saying that the Cards WRs are "slightly better" than ours...it explains everything.

Fitz is a top 5 receiver. Jennings is a top 5 receiver. Bolden is a top 10 receiver. Driver is a top 15-17 receiver.

Not a huge difference. Both have 1a and 1b. You greatly over-value Bolden. I remember when you were explaning why he was the better receiver, yet a single team would not pony up a 1st to the Cards for him.

I don't know for sure because I don't watch the Cards much, but you really think Breston is that much better than Jordy or Jones?!? Our depth is spectacular.

Fitz is generally considered to be the best WR in the game. Q is top 10. Q fucking broke his face and came right back. He is a far tougher receiver than anyone we have.

Jennings isn't top 5...in no way, other than your subjective viewpoint, is he...not statistically in any way shape or form.

Receiving yards: Nope.
Rec: Nope
Avg: Nope
YPG: Nope
Longest Td: Nope
TDs: Nope

Driver: You are a homer. He isn't a top 15 receiver. Again, the stats say otherwise.

Pony: The cards wanted more than a first for him. :oops: More to the point, what does a trade mean? Some teams dont' need a WR, some dont' value WRs that much, etc.

Not one team offered up a first for Brett...so, does that mean brett is worse than Mark Sanchez. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I only hope your logic is better when you program.

Depth: Based on what? Jordy didnt' do much nor did jones. Breaston was over a 1000 yards. Breaston had more receptions than DD, 3 less Jennings.

Not to mention that Jerheme Urban had 34 receps, 448 yards, and 4 tds.

Jones had 20 catches, 274 yards, 1 td.

Jordy had 33 catches, 336 yards, 2 tds.

The cards 3 and 4 receivers basically doubled ours in receptions and almost tripled ours in yardage. :lol:

Yep, that sure is spectacular depth...cardinals must have ULTRA SPECTACULAR DEPTH. :roll:

It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about once in a while.

[Partial]

Again Ty, who cares about yardage? They're getting the ball thrown to them play after play. Of course the yardage is theres for the taking.

Funny how your tune changes. I remember a post from you before the super bowl about how Q was the better player.

It's not even worth arguing with you. Both teams have 1a and 1b guys.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Again Ty, who cares about yardage? They're getting the ball thrown to them play after play. Of course the yardage is theres for the taking.

Funny how your tune changes. I remember a post from you before the super bowl about how Q was the better player.

It's not even worth arguing with you. Both teams have 1a and 1b guys.

Please feel free to post some facts that put Jennings as top 5 and DD as top 15.

Q: I think he is, but that isn't germane to this argument. And, it is better for you if i don't bring it up...because i and others would rate Q higher...thus making the disparity tween GB WR and Cards even greater. :lol:

Every team has 1a and 1b..that doesnt' make them close. Furthermore, what happened to your spectacular depth argument. :lol:

Face it, you just got schooled.

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts dont do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things

[Partial]

Not really. I absolutely think the Packers depth at receiver is equivalent. It's spectacular depth, any way you slice it.

Every team has a 1a and 1b? Right...

Few in here would debate that Jennings is a superstar and top 5 type talent. Who is better? Fitz, Moss, Johnson, Smith, then who? TO? Not at 36. Marshall? I'd rather have Jennings. Johnson? More potential and probably will be better but isn't yet. Wayne? I really don't think so. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to have him as a top 5 receiver.

Driver is probably closer to 20 then 15, I'll give you that one. According to this list, though, he's top 15, and Jennings is top 10(I'd have ranked him higher myself).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/125010-the-top-10-nfl-receivers-2009#page/1

Bill Schroeder used to get a ton of yards. I don't equate yards with greatness how you do. Breston might be a great third receiver, but we have a few pretty good ones too. I don't care if he went over a grand. It's a product of the offense they run.

I'm not going to argue with you because if there is one person on this board who absolutely has to be right, it's you

[Scott Campbell]

Few in here would debate that Jennings is a superstar and top 5 type talent.


Is yardage still overrated?

[Partial]

Few in here would debate that Jennings is a superstar and top 5 type talent.


Is yardage still overrated?

Very much so. By his numbers, Breaston looks like he could be a legit #1 somewhere :lol: Nevermind that he started a good chunk of games due to Bolden being out. Nevermind that they simply don't run the ball in the desert. Nevermind that he has a future HOF qb in Warner and two top 10 receivers on each side of him drawing double coverage. Silly facts. They just get in the way :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Few in here would debate that Jennings is a superstar and top 5 type talent.


Is yardage still overrated?

Very much so. By his numbers, Breaston looks like he could be a legit #1 somewhere :lol: Nevermind that he started a good chunk of games due to Bolden being out. Nevermind that they simply don't run the ball in the desert. Nevermind that he has a future HOF qb in Warner and two top 10 receivers on each side of him drawing double coverage. Silly facts. They just get in the way :lol:


Yardage was the only objective measure that had him sniffing the top 5. Going by TD's, he rates far lower. And don't get me started on his second half.

[Gunakor]

Nevermind that he has a future HOF qb in Warner...

Maybe. I might vote for him, but many wouldn't. He did kinda disappear for a few years after the thumb injury. He just re-emerged 2 seasons ago in AZ. He was battling with Leinhart for the starting job there too. He's no lock, not by a longshot.

[channtheman]

I agree with Ty and his owning of Partial. One thing I have to add though is that Urbin sucks ass. He just does. I don't care what his stats are, other than 1 good catch I noticed in the Atlanta game all he did was pop the ball into the air for interceptions.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree with Ty and his owning of Partial. One thing I have to add though is that Urbin sucks ass. He just does. I don't care what his stats are, other than 1 good catch I noticed in the Atlanta game all he did was pop the ball into the air for interceptions.


Who is Urbin?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not really. I absolutely think the Packers depth at receiver is equivalent. It's spectacular depth, any way you slice it.

Every team has a 1a and 1b? Right...

Few in here would debate that Jennings is a superstar and top 5 type talent. Who is better? Fitz, Moss, Johnson, Smith, then who? TO? Not at 36. Marshall? I'd rather have Jennings. Johnson? More potential and probably will be better but isn't yet. Wayne? I really don't think so. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to have him as a top 5 receiver.

Driver is probably closer to 20 then 15, I'll give you that one. According to this list, though, he's top 15, and Jennings is top 10(I'd have ranked him higher myself).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/125010-the-top-10-nfl-receivers-2009#page/1

Bill Schroeder used to get a ton of yards. I don't equate yards with greatness how you do. Breston might be a great third receiver, but we have a few pretty good ones too. I don't care if he went over a grand. It's a product of the offense they run.

I'm not going to argue with you because if there is one person on this board who absolutely has to be right, it's you

Equivalent? How so? Not by any statistical measure. But, i know, when the facts dont' go your way you go back to partial anlysis. :roll:

Depth: Spectacular. LOL The facts are the facts. Their 3rd receiver had more yards and catches then our 3 and 4 combined. :lol:

Few: Packer homers supporting Jennngs. Shocking. :lol:

Better receivers: Moss, Ocho Cinco, A. Johnson, Welker, Fitz, Q, Steve Smith, Wayne, Marshall, Johnson, roddy white, etc. There are a ton of receivers that fans in each city could argue are as good as jennings...lee evans, antonio bryant, santana moss, vincent jackson, hines ward, mason,eddie royal, Housh, torry holt, marques colston, etc.

Of course, once again, facts can't get in the way of your analysis.....same analysis that proclaimed the greatness of morency. A guy NOBODY in the league picked up.

Who equated yards with greatness? Not i. I used numbers to examine productivity. Or, should we just go by your method...whatever you think is right? LOL

You say we have pr

And, of course you denigrate Breaston...result of offense they run. That is quite funny since Arod only passed for about 400 yards less than Warner. :oops:

We have pretty good ones? Based on what? Jones hasn't done shit. He actually regressed last year. Jordy, based on what? Your opinion. Urban had more yards. LOL

To ascribe value to players that haven't done it on the field is hilarious. At this point in time...both Jones and Jordy haven't even accomplished what backups on other teams do...guys like Devery Henderson, Billy miller, etc.

I dont' have to be right...but, am i on this one.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Few in here would debate that Jennings is a superstar and top 5 type talent.


Is yardage still overrated?

Very much so. By his numbers, Breaston looks like he could be a legit #1 somewhere :lol: Nevermind that he started a good chunk of games due to Bolden being out. Nevermind that they simply don't run the ball in the desert. Nevermind that he has a future HOF qb in Warner and two top 10 receivers on each side of him drawing double coverage. Silly facts. They just get in the way :lol:

Nobody is claiming you can infer starter by his numbers. Strictly speaking his numbers are better than our 3rd.

But, this is treading on borderline foolishness on your part. Yep, no gms look at backups and their productivity and try to figure out if they could start.

But, why are you disparaging his numbers cos he has 2 good WRs...when, according to you..our depth is spectacular. Should make it easier for ours to get numbers.

And, your logic is so poor. He got his numbers because he started...ok, first we shouldnt' think he could start...when infact what you and everybody else should know is that when he started..HE WAS PRODUCTIVE. :lol:

Lastly, dont' let facts get in your way.

Cards rushing: 340 attempts.
Packers: 437

That is essentially 5 more rushes per game. :oops:

But, following your logic..if the cards dont' rush, then defenses know it...then they scheme according...game plan to stop the pass.

That's right. It is always easier to pass or run when the other team knows you can only do one or the other. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I agree with Ty and his owning of Partial. One thing I have to add though is that Urbin sucks ass. He just does. I don't care what his stats are, other than 1 good catch I noticed in the Atlanta game all he did was pop the ball into the air for interceptions.


Who is Urbin?

Exactly

[Partial]

Not really. I absolutely think the Packers depth at receiver is equivalent. It's spectacular depth, any way you slice it.

Every team has a 1a and 1b? Right...

Few in here would debate that Jennings is a superstar and top 5 type talent. Who is better? Fitz, Moss, Johnson, Smith, then who? TO? Not at 36. Marshall? I'd rather have Jennings. Johnson? More potential and probably will be better but isn't yet. Wayne? I really don't think so. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to have him as a top 5 receiver.

Driver is probably closer to 20 then 15, I'll give you that one. According to this list, though, he's top 15, and Jennings is top 10(I'd have ranked him higher myself).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/125010-the-top-10-nfl-receivers-2009#page/1

Bill Schroeder used to get a ton of yards. I don't equate yards with greatness how you do. Breston might be a great third receiver, but we have a few pretty good ones too. I don't care if he went over a grand. It's a product of the offense they run.

I'm not going to argue with you because if there is one person on this board who absolutely has to be right, it's you

Equivalent? How so? Not by any statistical measure. But, i know, when the facts dont' go your way you go back to partial anlysis. :roll:

Depth: Spectacular. LOL The facts are the facts. Their 3rd receiver had more yards and catches then our 3 and 4 combined. :lol:

Few: Packer homers supporting Jennngs. Shocking. :lol:

Better receivers: Moss, Ocho Cinco, A. Johnson, Welker, Fitz, Q, Steve Smith, Wayne, Marshall, Johnson, roddy white, etc. There are a ton of receivers that fans in each city could argue are as good as jennings...lee evans, antonio bryant, santana moss, vincent jackson, hines ward, mason,eddie royal, Housh, torry holt, marques colston, etc.

Of course, once again, facts can't get in the way of your analysis.....same analysis that proclaimed the greatness of morency. A guy NOBODY in the league picked up.

Who equated yards with greatness? Not i. I used numbers to examine productivity. Or, should we just go by your method...whatever you think is right? LOL

You say we have pr

And, of course you denigrate Breaston...result of offense they run. That is quite funny since Arod only passed for about 400 yards less than Warner. :oops:

We have pretty good ones? Based on what? Jones hasn't done shit. He actually regressed last year. Jordy, based on what? Your opinion. Urban had more yards. LOL

To ascribe value to players that haven't done it on the field is hilarious. At this point in time...both Jones and Jordy haven't even accomplished what backups on other teams do...guys like Devery Henderson, Billy miller, etc.

I dont' have to be right...but, am i on this one.

You just said you're not equating talent to yards, yet there you go and did it again. You said your #3 had more yards than our #4 and #5 combined. Maybe thats because we're giving to ball to our solid TEs, backs, #5, etc. Clearly other people are getting the ball since A-Rod did only throw for 400 less yards. That basically proves my point about the quality of our depth.

Then, you list 21 receivers who are "better" than Jennings without providing any evidence or links, etc. LOL! I'm convinced since you told me! I can list a whole slew of players too. You might as well just throw your homeboy Darren McFadden on that list too!

Again, comparing Nelson with Urban using the yards comparison. You just said it yourself yards != talent.

Dude, learn how to argue my main man. Clearly there isn't any hard data either way besides misleading stats, so I'm going to bow out.

Out, and that little stat you wanted to say is only "5" rushes a game, is actually more than 6, and at Warner's average, that is nearly 800 yards passing in a year. Nice try, guy.

[channtheman]

I agree with Ty and his owning of Partial. One thing I have to add though is that Urbin sucks ass. He just does. I don't care what his stats are, other than 1 good catch I noticed in the Atlanta game all he did was pop the ball into the air for interceptions.


Who is Urbin?

A crappy wide receiver that Ty used in his argument for Arizona's depth at receivers.

[Packman_26]

I haven't ignored Warner. Warner is there with Rodgers, Ryan and even Hasselbeck. Warner and Rodgers I see as similar with Rodgers getting the edge due to age. Hasselbeck and company may prnounce him fine, but back injuries aren't that easy to get over.

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

Why are you factoring in age at all? This isn't projecting who is going to be the best quarterback for the next 5 years. If so, you certainly have to start to examine Mannings age, etc.

The fact that you're accounting age in shows that you're speculating on the future versus what we've seen now.


Are you kidding? Any list that doesn't consider age is worthless. Is your list just a ranking of who has had the best career? And if that's the case, who cares? Brett Favre has surely had a better career than nearly all other active quarterbacks, does that make him one of the best quarterbacks in the league today? No.

I (and I would assume most others) really only care about the future. And in predicting the future you have to consider both how a player has previously performed and how much longer they will have the ability to play.

I guess the best way to put it is like this:
Who Detroit would rather have, Stafford or Rodgers? I would think the answer is clearly Rodgers. They are comparable in age, but Rodgers has shown (even if it’s just one year) the ability to put up big numbers in the NFL.

On the other hand, who would Detroit rather have: Brett Favre or Stafford? Favre has put up numbers that no quarterback has ever put up, but the pick would surely be Stafford. Favre's age leads one to believe that his skills are diminishing and that he will not play more than another year or two.

I think a better list of quarterbacks isn't really "who is better" but "who would you rather have". If I could pick from all quarterbacks in the league, Rodgers would have to be very high on the list. I would say top 5 and I don't think too many people could put him below 7 or 8.

[sharpe1027]

You just said you're not equating talent to yards, yet there you go and did it again. You said your #3 had more yards than our #4 and #5 combined. Maybe thats because we're giving to ball to our solid TEs, backs, #5, etc. Clearly other people are getting the ball since A-Rod did only throw for 400 less yards. That basically proves my point about the quality of our depth.

Then, you list 21 receivers who are "better" than Jennings without providing any evidence or links, etc. LOL! I'm convinced since you told me! I can list a whole slew of players too. You might as well just throw your homeboy Darren McFadden on that list too!

Again, comparing Nelson with Urban using the yards comparison. You just said it yourself yards != talent.

Dude, learn how to argue my main man. Clearly there isn't any hard data either way besides misleading stats, so I'm going to bow out.

Out, and that little stat you wanted to say is only "5" rushes a game, is actually more than 6, and at Warner's average, that is nearly 800 yards passing in a year. Nice try, guy.

Do you even care about having a discussion or is it all about proving yourself right and others wrong? Seems that everytime you get into this shit you completely lose sight of anything other than trying to come out the "winner." Whatever that may mean. Seriously, is 90% of what others have said baseless and wrong? Judging by your responses you seem to think so...

IDK, but maybe you should step away from the computer and take a deep cleansing breath everytime one of your "discussions" goes more than four pages.

[Fritz]

I agree with Ty and his owning of Partial. One thing I have to add though is that Urbin sucks ass. He just does. I don't care what his stats are, other than 1 good catch I noticed in the Atlanta game all he did was pop the ball into the air for interceptions.


Who is Urbin?

Exactly

His son in named Suburbin, and he has a brother named Ruril.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I agree with Ty and his owning of Partial. One thing I have to add though is that Urbin sucks ass. He just does. I don't care what his stats are, other than 1 good catch I noticed in the Atlanta game all he did was pop the ball into the air for interceptions.


Who is Urbin?

A crappy wide receiver that Ty used in his argument for Arizona's depth at receivers.

Actually, i didn't argue that. I used Urban to question the spectacular depth of the pack.

Our spectacular depth can't even match the crap of Urban.

[Zool]

His son in named Suburbin, and he has a brother named Ruril.

Sorry Fritz but I gotta boo this one and possibly throw a tomato.

[SnakeLH2006]

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

I think that's a debatable point and that's why I entered this discussion.

Personally, I think you're a lot like Partial, just on the other side of the debate. Kind of like "anti-twins".

For the record, my ranking aren't that different than yours but I'd rank Rodgers down a few spots because I value past performance higher than "projections".

I have the same type of back trouble that Hasslebeck has, and if he's done what the docs say he should do, he will be fine this year. It will eventually drive him into retirement, but he can manage it for a while, certainly longer than this year with the availability of good trainers, doctors, and other personnel and medication. Don't count him out...

True that,but at least Partial likes some things. CPK hates all things. Anyone remember 16 months ago CPK throwing Favre, MM, Murphy, TT, and the entire Packer Org. under the bus? Yep, Snake does. CPK is and always wiil be a condencending hater. I don't care what he says now (not like ANYONE does anyway or ever did) you just hate CPK. Hater!!! Hate hate hate. Your logic sucks, as if you ain't 12 years old you sure act like it. At least I'd drink a beer with Partial at the Rat game, he's pretty cool compared to your childish rantings. I respect him, Partial cuz he has a passion for Packer football...all you do is diss EVERYTHING all the fucking time. I dare you to show up at the Rat Game. I will punch in the mouth when you identify yourself as that punk CPK, if I or many see you. Get off here. No one does/ever liked you or your shitty posts. You really, really suck way too much ass to spend so much time on here. Thanks. KBye.

[cpk1994]

I may make assumptions, but at least I don't change and amend my arguement everytime it gets shot down.

I think that's a debatable point and that's why I entered this discussion.

Personally, I think you're a lot like Partial, just on the other side of the debate. Kind of like "anti-twins".

For the record, my ranking aren't that different than yours but I'd rank Rodgers down a few spots because I value past performance higher than "projections".

I have the same type of back trouble that Hasslebeck has, and if he's done what the docs say he should do, he will be fine this year. It will eventually drive him into retirement, but he can manage it for a while, certainly longer than this year with the availability of good trainers, doctors, and other personnel and medication. Don't count him out...

True that,but at least Partial likes some things. CPK hates all things. Anyone remember 16 months ago CPK throwing Favre, MM, Murphy, TT, and the entire Packer Org. under the bus? Yep, Snake does. CPK is and always wiil be a condencending hater. I don't care what he says now (not like ANYONE does anyway or ever did) you just hate CPK. Hater!!! Hate hate hate. Your logic sucks, as if you ain't 12 years old you sure act like it. At least I'd drink a beer with Partial at the Rat game, he's pretty cool compared to your childish rantings. I respect him, Partial cuz he has a passion for Packer football...all you do is diss EVERYTHING all the fucking time. I dare you to show up at the Rat Game. I will punch in the mouth when you identify yourself as that punk CPK, if I or many see you. Get off here. No one does/ever liked you or your shitty posts. You really, really suck way too much ass to spend so much time on here. Thanks. KBye.

Looks like I have to make another exception and respond to this little jagoff. So here goes:

Don't you remember that I said that becuase I thought they were caving to the diva? You shjould also remember that when they held firm and didn't cave, I amitted I was wrong about M3 and TT and that they do stick to what they preach. But we can't have facts getting in the way of childish BS from a first class immature douchebag asshat who edits the content of my posts and purposely misrepresents me now can we? I woin't respond to the rest of your drivel becuase that would be dignifying someone with no class.

[mission]

I couldn't get past page 4 or 5 of the thread without continuing to ask myself the same question:

Is it TT's job to win football games?

I can understand it's fair to use the team's success as a factor in job performance evaluation but I'd have to think his real job is to handle personnel and putting the necessary people in place for success. It's MM's job to win football games and if he can't, then it's on TT for hiring him. Firing them together as if they're a tandem and work together all day is kneejerk.

Something as arbitrary as TT's job requires a lot of thought but I dread the day he's not in charge of the Packers and we have to deal with years of what's going on in Milwaukee. The grass is always greener, but in this case, we have one of the neighborhood's best lawns. ;)[/i]

[The Shadow]

I couldn't get past page 4 or 5 of the thread without continuing to ask myself the same question:

Is it TT's job to win football games?

I can understand it's fair to use the team's success as a factor in job performance evaluation but I'd have to think his real job is to handle personnel and putting the necessary people in place for success. It's MM's job to win football games and if he can't, then it's on TT for hiring him. Firing them together as if they're a tandem and work together all day is kneejerk.

Something as arbitrary as TT's job requires a lot of thought but I dread the day he's not in charge of the Packers and we have to deal with years of what's going on in Milwaukee. The grass is always greener, but in this case, we have one of the neighborhood's best lawns. ;)[/i]

Great post. Love the avator.

[pbmax]

I couldn't get past page 4 or 5 of the thread without continuing to ask myself the same question:

Is it TT's job to win football games?
Its his job. He is the Executive V.P., General Manager & Director of Football Operations and he has total authority over football matters. If the coach is failing, then its on his watch and under his authority. If the team doesn't win, eventually he will be shown the door.

[Bretsky]

I couldn't get past page 4 or 5 of the thread without continuing to ask myself the same question:

Is it TT's job to win football games?

I)[/i]




YES IT IS :!:

[Lurker64]

Is it TT's job to win football games?

No. It's TT's job to put together a team that's capable of lining up and beating anybody across the field from them. Actually winning the games is the responsibility of the coaches and players.

[Partial]

Is it TT's job to win football games?

No. It's TT's job to put together a team that's capable of lining up and beating anybody across the field from them. Actually winning the games is the responsibility of the coaches and players.

Which he is responsible for hiring. Ipso facto, it's his responsibility.

[MJZiggy]

Is it TT's job to win football games?

No. It's TT's job to put together a team that's capable of lining up and beating anybody across the field from them. Actually winning the games is the responsibility of the coaches and players.

Which he is responsible for hiring. Ipso facto, it's his responsibility.

What if he hires players and coaches that are perfectly capable of winning and due to injury or whatever reason they just don't. They're perfectly qualified and talented, but it just doesn't show up in the W column every week? Are you going to fire him and get someone less capable of putting qualified people on the football field?

BTW, nice post, mission.

[Bretsky]

TT is responsible to hiring a head coach and getting the players to win

He gets the ultimate credit or blame; it's his show

His job is to put the pieces together to win games, make the playoffs, and win titles.

[Bretsky]

Is it TT's job to win football games?

No. It's TT's job to put together a team that's capable of lining up and beating anybody across the field from them. Actually winning the games is the responsibility of the coaches and players.

Which he is responsible for hiring. Ipso facto, it's his responsibility.

What if he hires players and coaches that are perfectly capable of winning and due to injury or whatever reason they just don't. They're perfectly qualified and talented, but it just doesn't show up in the W column every week? Are you going to fire him and get someone less capable of putting qualified people on the football field?

BTW, nice post, mission.


spoken like a true apologist

TT's doing fine; nobody, I don't think, is throwing him under the bus

As much as you cherish TTT, if he's not capable to putting together the pieces to win games you can his ass and try to find somebody who might

Who said the new guy would be more or less qualified ??

If it's not a GM's job to win games then we should just hire a nice guy who's a loser. I hear Matt Millen is available :lol:

[MJZiggy]

I'm asking a question that could apply to any GM. Apply it to Matt Millen if you like. Did Millen draft good, capable players and hire talented coaches? Or did he lose his job because he sucked?

[mission]

I couldn't get past page 4 or 5 of the thread without continuing to ask myself the same question:

Is it TT's job to win football games?
Its his job. He is the Executive V.P., General Manager & Director of Football Operations and he has total authority over football matters. If the coach is failing, then its on his watch and under his authority. If the team doesn't win, eventually he will be shown the door.

That's like saying it's the Trip Planner's job to make sure you have a fun time on vacation.

Ultimately, that's part of their bottom line but the planner's job is to make all the arrangements, make sure you have the great hotel on the beach, make sure everything is lined up ... if your woman is on her rag all week, ya get the shits from the water and you get arrested for buying blow from a guy on the beach then that's really your fault.

If this happens over and over then maybe the trip planner is at fault and they aren't very good at their job ... then again, maybe it's just your old lady and diarrhea.

[Partial]

TT is responsible to hiring a head coach and getting the players to win

He gets the ultimate credit or blame; it's his show

His job is to put the pieces together to win games, make the playoffs, and win titles.

Agree 100%. He's judged on his results over time. Sure, they may have one awful year based on some anomaly. GMs aren't judged off of one year, Zig.

Based on what you're saying, who is to blame, then, when a team has a quality staff and good enough players yet underachieves?

[Bretsky]

TT is responsible to hiring a head coach and getting the players to win

He gets the ultimate credit or blame; it's his show

His job is to put the pieces together to win games, make the playoffs, and win titles.

Agree 100%. He's judged on his results over time. Sure, they may have one awful year based on some anomaly. GMs aren't judged off of one year, Zig.

Based on what you're saying, who is to blame, then, when a team has a quality staff and good enough players yet underachieves?



Luck I guess

[MJZiggy]

TT is responsible to hiring a head coach and getting the players to win

He gets the ultimate credit or blame; it's his show

His job is to put the pieces together to win games, make the playoffs, and win titles.

Agree 100%. He's judged on his results over time. Sure, they may have one awful year based on some anomaly. GMs aren't judged off of one year, Zig.

Based on what you're saying, who is to blame, then, when a team has a quality staff and good enough players yet underachieves?

File this under "no shit they're not judged on one year."

Has it ever occurred to you that no one might be to blame? If the team underachieves, I'd say that might be a coaching issue, but I'd also offer that each case needs to be looked at on an individual basis. If all the pieces are there, then the GM has done his job, no?

[woodbuck27]

It really doesnt matter what TT does here in GB, some people will never forgive him because of the whole Favre drama. TT is one of the top GMs in the league, anyone with half a brain can realize that. I don't really care what the anti-ted people think because those are the same guys who will be cheering for Favre to beat us as a Viking just to prove TT wrong. Those guys are NOT packer fans, they just have a man crushe on Favre.

BTW this is not a Favre bash, I just do not believe anyone is higher than the team no matter how good that player is, something some of you on this board just dont get.

One day I suspect we'll all know exactly how it got to TT going with Aaron Rodgers over a QB that was outstanding in 2007 (Brett Favre). That fact or the timing of that move aside. Aaron Rodgers played very well for a Rookie starting QB last season and I'm all for him succeeding moreso in 2009.

To describe or label anyone with the term 'hater' is to use a very strong and negative label. I take into question ' the lableler ' as being misguided, rather than the person labeled.

As Packer fans surely we all want the team to progress not fail or shine poorly on our GM or HC. TT has been at the helm for enough time to clearly expect results this year and certainly by next season. Results means a berth deep into the playoffs or moreso a Super Bowl appearance.

To address TT as the finest GM in the NFL is a matter of opinion and because it's Gil Brandt or not deeming him so doesn't make it so. It certainly rings up more credibility for TT as a fine GM. I hope 'in fact' we'll all be able to claim he is. :D

[mission]

It really doesnt matter what TT does here in GB, some people will never forgive him because of the whole Favre drama. TT is one of the top GMs in the league, anyone with half a brain can realize that. I don't really care what the anti-ted people think because those are the same guys who will be cheering for Favre to beat us as a Viking just to prove TT wrong. Those guys are NOT packer fans, they just have a man crushe on Favre.

BTW this is not a Favre bash, I just do not believe anyone is higher than the team no matter how good that player is, something some of you on this board just dont get.

One day I suspect we'll all know exactly how it got to TT going with Aaron Rodgers over a QB that was outstanding in 2007 (Brett Favre).

Most of us have it figured out already. Hopefully the "theorists" come around some day ... one day we'll know... you know, when the documentary comes out on why ARod started for the Packers last year. It's gonna be cool!

[pbmax]

I couldn't get past page 4 or 5 of the thread without continuing to ask myself the same question:

Is it TT's job to win football games?
Its his job. He is the Executive V.P., General Manager & Director of Football Operations and he has total authority over football matters. If the coach is failing, then its on his watch and under his authority. If the team doesn't win, eventually he will be shown the door.

That's like saying it's the Trip Planner's job to make sure you have a fun time on vacation.

Ultimately, that's part of their bottom line but the planner's job is to make all the arrangements, make sure you have the great hotel on the beach, make sure everything is lined up ... if your woman is on her rag all week, ya get the shits from the water and you get arrested for buying blow from a guy on the beach then that's really your fault.

If this happens over and over then maybe the trip planner is at fault and they aren't very good at their job ... then again, maybe it's just your old lady and diarrhea.
If the majority of the Trip Planner's clients do not have fun on their vacation, then guess what? Tripp Planner will eventually be updating that resume. :lol:

Ziggy makes a valid point, some seasons and certain stretches may be a better indication of the GMs performance than injury riddled seasons. But overall, he will be hired and fired based on wins and losses.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It really doesnt matter what TT does here in GB, some people will never forgive him because of the whole Favre drama. TT is one of the top GMs in the league, anyone with half a brain can realize that. I don't really care what the anti-ted people think because those are the same guys who will be cheering for Favre to beat us as a Viking just to prove TT wrong. Those guys are NOT packer fans, they just have a man crushe on Favre.

BTW this is not a Favre bash, I just do not believe anyone is higher than the team no matter how good that player is, something some of you on this board just dont get.

One day I suspect we'll all know exactly how it got to TT going with Aaron Rodgers over a QB that was outstanding in 2007 (Brett Favre).

Most of us have it figured out already. Hopefully the "theorists" come around some day ... one day we'll know... you know, when the documentary comes out on why ARod started for the Packers last year. It's gonna be cool!

I don't believe that TT got rid of Favre or went with Arod.

I saw another GM in the grassy knoll outside Lambeau the same day Favre arrived.

[pbmax]

One day I suspect we'll all know exactly how it got to TT going with Aaron Rodgers over a QB that was outstanding in 2007 (Brett Favre).
Because Brett retired. Twice now.

Woodie, its no coincidence that Favre is now in year two of dithering over his future plans and doing so not in March, but May, while missing OTAs and minicamps. He doesn't want to be there. He has said so. He wants to just play in the games, and will stomach training camp. One year out of the last several, he hired a trainer for himself and had an excellent season (2007). The last time he did this full time (Sherman's tenure-don't remember the year) was the core-training we heard about all through training camp, he had a good year. But in each of those years, in addition to the others, he performance tailed off as the season wore on and the weather got worse.

He is old. 40, even for Brett Lorenzo Favre, is old. He no longer has the patience for meetings, the offseason program, QB school, the OTAs, mini-camps or training camps. He also is tired of weekly meetings, reviewing tape of his interceptions, the press and, possibly, the other players in locker room (he has no friends there anymore). He is not now dedicated to his team, he is dedicated to his own cares and is unwilling to subject himself to most of the rigors that his teammates must. Much of this was overlooked earlier (even encouraged by Sherman and the pitch count after the tendonitis episode) when his play was still consistently high. Now, when his play falters because of age and the length of the season, he is doing even less work.

His dedication is waning.

And now his body is breaking down, and Favre is seeking a solution to the pain that will not involve surgery and rehab. He does not respond well to the cold. I would be surprised if anyone close to 40 on this board didn't see Favre in the game in Soldier Field in 2007 and think to himself, "I know that look, its cold and he's miserable". It is incredibly difficult to be a professional football player. It is probably as mentally draining as it is physically. Brett is old and tired of it. But he cannot seem to listen to what his body and brain are trying to tell him.

Brett Favre was replaced by Aaron Rodgers because every piece of evidence available suggested that there was NO WAY that #4 could repeat his 2007 season. What has happened since makes that even more obvious. Time is not with him. It is with #12.

If anyone reposts this with the clapping hands icon, or the wave smileys or Quotes it For Truth, I will reach through you computer screen and hit the ignore button on your forehead. Fair warning :lol:

[Joemailman]

One day I suspect we'll all know exactly how it got to TT going with Aaron Rodgers over a QB that was outstanding in 2007 (Brett Favre).
Because Brett retired. Twice now.

Woodie, its no coincidence that Favre is now in year two of dithering over his future plans and doing so not in March, but May, while missing OTAs and minicamps. He doesn't want to be there. He has said so. He wants to just play in the games, and will stomach training camp. One year out of the last several, he hired a trainer for himself and had an excellent season (2007). The last time he did this full time (Sherman's tenure-don't remember the year) was the core-training we heard about all through training camp, he had a good year. But in each of those years, in addition to the others, he performance tailed off as the season wore on and the weather got worse.

He is old. 40, even for Brett Lorenzo Favre, is old. He no longer has the patience for meetings, the offseason program, QB school, the OTAs, mini-camps or training camps. He also is tired of weekly meetings, reviewing tape of his interceptions, the press and, possibly, the other players in locker room (he has no friends there anymore). He is not now dedicated to his team, he is dedicated to his own cares and is unwilling to subject himself to most of the rigors that his teammates must. Much of this was overlooked earlier (even encouraged by Sherman and the pitch count after the tendonitis episode) when his play was still consistently high. Now, when his play falters because of age and the length of the season, he is doing even less work.

His dedication is waning.

And now his body is breaking down, and Favre is seeking a solution to the pain that will not involve surgery and rehab. He does not respond well to the cold. I would be surprised if anyone close to 40 on this board didn't see Favre in the game in Soldier Field in 2007 and think to himself, "I know that look, its cold and he's miserable". It is incredibly difficult to be a professional football player. It is probably as mentally draining as it is physically. Brett is old and tired of it. But he cannot seem to listen to what his body and brain are trying to tell him.

Brett Favre was replaced by Aaron Rodgers because every piece of evidence available suggested that there was NO WAY that #4 could repeat his 2007 season. What has happened since makes that even more obvious. Time is not with him. It is with #12.

If anyone reposts this with the clapping hands icon, or the wave smileys or Quotes it For Truth, I will reach through you computer screen and hit the ignore button on your forehead. Fair warning :lol: :five: :wow: :flag: :glug:

[woodbuck27]

One day I suspect we'll all know exactly how it got to TT going with Aaron Rodgers over a QB that was outstanding in 2007 (Brett Favre).
Because Brett retired. Twice now.

Woodie, its no coincidence that Favre is now in year two of dithering over his future plans and doing so not in March, but May, while missing OTAs and minicamps. He doesn't want to be there. He has said so. He wants to just play in the games, and will stomach training camp. One year out of the last several, he hired a trainer for himself and had an excellent season (2007). The last time he did this full time (Sherman's tenure-don't remember the year) was the core-training we heard about all through training camp, he had a good year. But in each of those years, in addition to the others, he performance tailed off as the season wore on and the weather got worse.

He is old. 40, even for Brett Lorenzo Favre, is old. He no longer has the patience for meetings, the offseason program, QB school, the OTAs, mini-camps or training camps. He also is tired of weekly meetings, reviewing tape of his interceptions, the press and, possibly, the other players in locker room (he has no friends there anymore). He is not now dedicated to his team, he is dedicated to his own cares and is unwilling to subject himself to most of the rigors that his teammates must. Much of this was overlooked earlier (even encouraged by Sherman and the pitch count after the tendonitis episode) when his play was still consistently high. Now, when his play falters because of age and the length of the season, he is doing even less work.

His dedication is waning.

And now his body is breaking down, and Favre is seeking a solution to the pain that will not involve surgery and rehab. He does not respond well to the cold. I would be surprised if anyone close to 40 on this board didn't see Favre in the game in Soldier Field in 2007 and think to himself, "I know that look, its cold and he's miserable". It is incredibly difficult to be a professional football player. It is probably as mentally draining as it is physically. Brett is old and tired of it. But he cannot seem to listen to what his body and brain are trying to tell him.

Brett Favre was replaced by Aaron Rodgers because every piece of evidence available suggested that there was NO WAY that #4 could repeat his 2007 season. What has happened since makes that even more obvious. Time is not with him. It is with #12.

If anyone reposts this with the clapping hands icon, or the wave smileys or Quotes it For Truth, I will reach through you computer screen and hit the ignore button on your forehead. Fair warning :lol:

How about this:

I respect the accuracy or honesty of the facts as you assess them pbmax. Somehow it really gets to just there. R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

I hope I've made it perfectly clear that once the shock was over I for one was relieved that Favre moved away from us. It seems he's still moving. I wish him the best and yes pbmax it won't be easy. What bugs me is those that choose to carve him up like cold turkey rather than just wish him well. He along with Bart Starr are the greatest QB's in Green Bay Packer history.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[pbmax]

If anyone reposts this with the clapping hands icon, or the wave smileys or Quotes it For Truth, I will reach through you computer screen and hit the ignore button on your forehead. Fair warning :lol: :five: :wow: :flag: :glug:[/quote]

Just wait until I see you logged in Joe, POW, right in the kisser! :D

[pbmax]

How about this:

I respect the accuracy or honesty of the facts as you assess them pbmax. Somehow it really gets to just there. R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

I hope I've made it perfectly clear that once the shock was over I for one was relieved that Favre moved away from us. It seems he's still moving. I wish him the best and yes pbmax it won't be easy. What bugs me is those that choose to carve him up like cold turkey rather than just wish him well. He along with Bart Starr are the greatest QB's in Green Bay Packer history.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
Fair enough Woodbuck. I have always thought that too many people of a certain age made too big a deal out of the end of Willie Mays career (that he was nothing more than a stumbling shell of his former self) or Joe Willie playing for the Rams, or Johnny Unitas playing for the Chargers.

I came along well after each of these players and my respect for them is not diminished in any way by the end of their careers like so many people loved to predict at the time (or remember now).

My respect for Favre only took a slight dip in the Van Susteren interview, but is still very high. Nothing will diminish the memories. I just hope we eventually move through this phase faster than we are currently.

[Fritz]

I couldn't get past page 4 or 5 of the thread without continuing to ask myself the same question:

Is it TT's job to win football games?
Its his job. He is the Executive V.P., General Manager & Director of Football Operations and he has total authority over football matters. If the coach is failing, then its on his watch and under his authority. If the team doesn't win, eventually he will be shown the door.

That's like saying it's the Trip Planner's job to make sure you have a fun time on vacation.

Ultimately, that's part of their bottom line but the planner's job is to make all the arrangements, make sure you have the great hotel on the beach, make sure everything is lined up ... if your woman is on her rag all week, ya get the shits from the water and you get arrested for buying blow from a guy on the beach then that's really your fault.

If this happens over and over then maybe the trip planner is at fault and they aren't very good at their job ... then again, maybe it's just your old lady and diarrhea.

So if the Packers don't win this year, it's because Mike McCarthy's wife is being a bee-atch and McCarthy is suffering from a season-long case of diarrhea.

Ah. That explains it all. I'm sending MM some immodium and his wife flowers - from MM - every week.

[retailguy]

TT's doing fine; nobody, I don't think, is throwing him under the bus


Well said Bretsky, and I agree. With the exception of just a couple of people around here, I don't think ANYONE is throwing him under the bus.

That being said, I think there is a very vocal minority who see that he "doesn't walk on water". It seems from my perspective, that if you don't absolutely "love the guy", you're termed a "hater".

I, admittedly don't like the guy. I see a lot of other responsibilities, other than drafting players, that he doesn't do very well. He's not much of a leader, nor is he much of a communicator. Does this make him a "bad GM"?

Not necessarily, he'll be judged by when he wins games. This year we'll find out if 2007 was a building block or an aberration.

If he wins, I'll overlook his warts as will most others. If he doesn't, those warts deserve further scrutiny. And for those who claim, McCarthy is the one charged with winning, I agree. However, Thompson hired the coach. And if you recall, he passed over a lot of well qualified experienced people to pick "his guy". That's part of the GM job, and puts him right in the boat with McCarthy. Trying to push that off of him and onto McCarthy? Pure excuse mode.

[mraynrand]

I, admittedly don't like the guy. I see a lot of other responsibilities, other than drafting players, that he doesn't do very well. He's not much of a leader, nor is he much of a communicator. Does this make him a "bad GM"?


What do you base this on?

[mraynrand]

If anyone reposts this with the clapping hands icon, or the wave smileys or Quotes it For Truth, I will reach through you computer screen and hit the ignore button on your forehead. Fair warning :lol: :five: :wow: :flag: :glug:

Just wait until I see you logged in Joe, POW, right in the kisser! :D[/quote]

QFT

[retailguy]

I, admittedly don't like the guy. I see a lot of other responsibilities, other than drafting players, that he doesn't do very well. He's not much of a leader, nor is he much of a communicator. Does this make him a "bad GM"?


What do you base this on?

Various articles that I've read over the last 5 years, various statements that I've heard him make, and others make about him during the same time period.

I'm sure if I thought about it long enough, I could come up with specific examples, but I remember many cases of bewilderment about things I either heard him say, or things that were attributed to him.

[packers04]

bottom line is favre kept the team hostage for the last few years... it had to end. the organization can't be hamstrung by an ex girlfriend that just wont turn the page.... no matter how good the love making was.

nice analogy i know haha

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I, admittedly don't like the guy. I see a lot of other responsibilities, other than drafting players, that he doesn't do very well. He's not much of a leader, nor is he much of a communicator. Does this make him a "bad GM"?


What do you base this on?

TT voted for Obama. :wink: