Alternative History - The bears game

[Tyrone Bigguns]

One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. You know, what would things look like if the Nazi's had won, etc.

With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bert surely woulda winged up a few prayers that woulda been intercepted, devasting ints at the wrong time. The Bear's game required a game manager, someone patient enough to wait for the opportunity to strike...and that isn't Bert.

Bears 21-10.

[Jimx29]

step away from the hooka


Pack 38
cubs 13

[packerbacker1234]

One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. You know, what would things look like if the Nazi's had won, etc.

With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bert surely woulda winged up a few prayers that woulda been intercepted, devasting ints at the wrong time. The Bear's game required a game manager, someone patient enough to wait for the opportunity to strike...and that isn't Bert.

Bears 21-10.

Or... if bert starts... we actually score points on offense.

I mean, Rodger's didn't turn it over, but we punted... a lot.

I don't think bert makes a difference honestly. Rodgers did nothing save one play at the end. How many times have we seen bert make that same play? Plenty enough to warrant confidence that bert would of made the same play.

Regardless, hindsight being 20-20, the pack wins regardless.

(I also laugh at needing a game manager. Brett was completely a game manager this weekend with Minnesota, meanwhile Rodgers never got it going at all)

[Partial]

Bert can't fix a bad OL but he was much better pocket presence and arm on short passes.

27 - 15

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And, the truly blind have revealed themselves.

[Freak Out]

We lose that game with old #4 behind center.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. You know, what would things look like if the Nazi's had won, etc.

With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bert surely woulda winged up a few prayers that woulda been intercepted, devasting ints at the wrong time. The Bear's game required a game manager, someone patient enough to wait for the opportunity to strike...and that isn't Bert.

Bears 21-10.

Or... if bert starts... we actually score points on offense.

I mean, Rodger's didn't turn it over, but we punted... a lot.

I don't think bert makes a difference honestly. Rodgers did nothing save one play at the end. How many times have we seen bert make that same play? Plenty enough to warrant confidence that bert would of made the same play.

Regardless, hindsight being 20-20, the pack wins regardless.

(I also laugh at needing a game manager. Brett was completely a game manager this weekend with Minnesota, meanwhile Rodgers never got it going at all)

I was waiting for someone who would be ridiculous and bring up the Vikes game...hmm, did arod have a rb with 180 yards.

Yeah, i'm sure a running game didn't affect it.

[Fritz]

Okay, Ty, first of all, enough with the "Bert" crap. He gets disrespected enough already.

But to answer your question:

If Brent Favre had started for the Pack, the game would have turned out exactly the same in terms of score. He might've thrown a pick here or there instead of an incomplete, but in the end, it would've been the same game.

Why?

Well, because Brent's become the very thing you said this game needed from the QB - a game manager. He's so muted and mundane up there in Minnesota that you wouldn't even know it's him except for that #4 and the gray buzz cut.

[Cleft Crusty]

This thread seems like a pointless exercise. Favre is two years out from his last decent season, and is all beat up. It will be hard to compare the two QBs because they will be asked to do very different things this year. Still, Crusty predicts Favre will wear down sooner than later and anyone who really believes that having Favre under center for the Packers this year would be better than Rodgers will be eating their words.

[red]

bert wouldn't have helped barbre. in fact bert probably would have been on the ground more times

and bert still would have had the dropped passes

i was a huge bert fan when he was a parker, but i now have full faith in rodgers. i was pissed very much when the change was made, but now i see it as the right more. 100% confident in that

i also think the vikings would be a better team if a-rod was their qb this year

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Okay, Ty, first of all, enough with the "Bert" crap. He gets disrespected enough already.

But to answer your question:

If Brent Favre had started for the Pack, the game would have turned out exactly the same in terms of score. He might've thrown a pick here or there instead of an incomplete, but in the end, it would've been the same game.

Why?

Well, because Brent's become the very thing you said this game needed from the QB - a game manager. He's so muted and mundane up there in Minnesota that you wouldn't even know it's him except for that #4 and the gray buzz cut.

Fritz,

He is with the vikes..but, he knows that coming in. The packers aren't that type of team...as displayed in the preseason. this is a wide open offense.

this game required something he never has shown...patience. Adjustment to game managing within a game.

good ol brent couldn't do that.

[Fritz]

He's a changed man, Ty, Adrian Peterson or not. I honestly wonder if he sits in front of his locker sometimes now wondering what he came back for. He really seems kinda lost, almost. He's playing, but he's just managing things, and despite his words about having fun, it don't look to me like he's having fun.

So I do think he'd have somberly managed the game. I also think that Rodgers has surpassed him as a QB. Part of the reason is that Favre seems to have lost the very thing people gushed about - his vivacity, his boyish passion, his creativity.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

He's a changed man, Ty, Adrian Peterson or not. I honestly wonder if he sits in front of his locker sometimes now wondering what he came back for. He really seems kinda lost, almost. He's playing, but he's just managing things, and despite his words about having fun, it don't look to me like he's having fun.

So I do think he'd have somberly managed the game. I also think that Rodgers has surpassed him as a QB. Part of the reason is that Favre seems to have lost the very thing people gushed about - his vivacity, his boyish passion, his creativity.

Prove that he has changed. Recent history with the Jets says otherwise.

Fun: that may be true, but it isn't germane to the point.

Like i said, in a close game Bert woulda felt the need to win it himself..and made several bad plays.

But, disregarding that....arod was running for his life...bert couldn't have escaped as well as arod.

I'm looking forward to a close vikings game..maybe with ravens..then we'll see what happens.

[cheesner]

Not too much difference. I think that Bratt would have probably tossed a pick or two; he also maybe hits one of those missed bombs and it is a wash and the Packers still win. The main problems, the OL blocking and the dropped passes, would have probably been the same.

I would definitely go with my chances with AR rather than Bratt.

Fritz - your first post - very funny! :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

With 4 picks, I thought Bert was playing for the Bears.

[pasquale]

He's playing, but he's just managing things, and despite his words about having fun, it don't look to me like he's having fun.


I agree with him managing things..but did you watch the Minnesota gamed...Do I need to find a clip of him tackling Harvin?

Not sure you can show much more joy and smiles on the field than Bert's patented "mob your WR". To me that looks like he's having fun.

[The Shadow]

There came a point in the game where I thought we were inevitably going to lose, and then I realized that I had grown accustomed over many years to the stupid interception on the last chance in games like this that sealed our doom.
But then Rodgers brought home the bacon.
I think this game was a major milestone for the entire team.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

With 4 picks, I thought Bert was playing for the Bears.

:lol:

[ThunderDan]

Can we please stop with new Brent Favre threads!!!

[Packgator]

how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bears 21-10.

There is only a handful of people on the planet who could have QB'd the Packers to a win last Sunday. "Bert" is no longer one of the handful. Lucky for us Rodgers is.

[mraynrand]

how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bears 21-10.

There is only a handful of people on the planet who could have QB'd the Packers to a win last Sunday. "Bert" is no longer one of the handful. Lucky for us Rodgers is.

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/bowflexendorsement.jpg

[LEWCWA]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

[packerbacker1234]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

Not to mention that for all the bashing people do of favre's int's these days, they seem to forget games like....

(in his final year in gb)

against chargers, vikings, denver. They choose to remember chicago and the playoff game against the Giants, but not the awesome game he had against seattle.

Brett is a 50/50 QB when it comes to the game being on the line: And in today's NFL thats pretty good. He did it last year too in beating the Titans. He was the only reason the Jets were even in that game, let alone won it.

Just saying: I do agree Rodger's is better now then Favre is right now, that doesn't mean Favre is suddenly garbage.

They both got the job done last weekend. Lets return to this at the midway point, or at LEAST wait until after the packers and vikings play eachother.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

First, the vikes won the game, just as the pack won theirs.

Second, if anyone "won" the game his name is AD.

[Fritz]

He's playing, but he's just managing things, and despite his words about having fun, it don't look to me like he's having fun.


I agree with him managing things..but did you watch the Minnesota gamed...Do I need to find a clip of him tackling Harvin?

Not sure you can show much more joy and smiles on the field than Bert's patented "mob your WR". To me that looks like he's having fun.

If this is so, then it won't be too many games until he starts winging the ball all over. And I mean all over.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Okay, Ty, first of all, enough with the "Bert" crap. He gets disrespected enough already.

But to answer your question:

If Brent Favre...

Fritz, that's some funny shit!!!

[bobblehead]

One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. You know, what would things look like if the Nazi's had won, etc.

With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bert surely woulda winged up a few prayers that woulda been intercepted, devasting ints at the wrong time. The Bear's game required a game manager, someone patient enough to wait for the opportunity to strike...and that isn't Bert.

Bears 21-10.

Or... if bert starts... we actually score points on offense.

I mean, Rodger's didn't turn it over, but we punted... a lot.

I don't think bert makes a difference honestly. Rodgers did nothing save one play at the end. How many times have we seen bert make that same play? Plenty enough to warrant confidence that bert would of made the same play.

Regardless, hindsight being 20-20, the pack wins regardless.

(I also laugh at needing a game manager. Brett was completely a game manager this weekend with Minnesota, meanwhile Rodgers never got it going at all)

Bert can be a game manager sometimes...see week one vs. Philadelphia (except for one ugly pick that almost cost us the game). Problem is he can't force himself to do it for a season...maybe having AP and wanting to win to show TT and MM will keep him in control...but all he proves by playing in control to stick it to the guys who wanted to control him is...well....they were right all along.

[Fritz]

I agree with the gist of your post, Bobble. My theory is that he can be a game manager only for as long as it satisfies whatever personal needs he has with this comeback. If being a game manager satisfies those needs all season long, then probably he can do it. However, if at any point those needs are no longer met by game-managing, he'll become a gunslinger.

The question is, what exactly are those needs? It's nearly impossible to say for certain. My question is this: if he can win a Super Bowl with the Vikes, being a muted, 14-21 and 140 yards a game guy, and Adrian Peterson getting the bulk of the credit, along with the D, will that be enough for Favre? If he's seen as an adjunct piece of the puzzle, a Trent Dilfer just-don't-screw-it-up quarterback, will that be okay with him as long as he gets the trophy? Or will he need some personal glory?

[sharpe1027]

I agree with the gist of your post, Bobble. My theory is that he can be a game manager only for as long as it satisfies whatever personal needs he has with this comeback. If being a game manager satisfies those needs all season long, then probably he can do it. However, if at any point those needs are no longer met by game-managing, he'll become a gunslinger.

The question is, what exactly are those needs? It's nearly impossible to say for certain. My question is this: if he can win a Super Bowl with the Vikes, being a muted, 14-21 and 140 yards a game guy, and Adrian Peterson getting the bulk of the credit, along with the D, will that be enough for Favre? If he's seen as an adjunct piece of the puzzle, a Trent Dilfer just-don't-screw-it-up quarterback, will that be okay with him as long as he gets the trophy? Or will he need some personal glory?

The question that comes to my mind is why the hell did they sign him if that's truly all they need? Sage can fill that role nicely.

I guess they made a crapload of money in jersey and ticket sales.

[Packgator]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

Not to mention that for all the bashing people do of favre's int's these days, they seem to forget games like....

(in his final year in gb)

against chargers, vikings, denver. They choose to remember chicago and the playoff game against the Giants, but not the awesome game he had against seattle.

Brett is a 50/50 QB when it comes to the game being on the line: And in today's NFL thats pretty good. He did it last year too in beating the Titans. He was the only reason the Jets were even in that game, let alone won it.

Just saying: I do agree Rodger's is better now then Favre is right now, that doesn't mean Favre is suddenly garbage.

They both got the job done last weekend. Lets return to this at the midway point, or at LEAST wait until after the packers and vikings play eachother.

I think you are missing the point/topic of this thread.

""One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.""

It's one game. Three specific hours in time under the same circumstances.....same everything. We were not asked to debate who has had the best career, most wins, how they played ten (or two) years ago, or best/most anything. Just how we see the outcome if Favre were playing QB for the Packers last Sunday.

The answer of course is pure conjecture (for Favre). But not so with Rodgers. With Rodgers we know the outcome. This game and outcome was huge for Rodgers. It was a very difficult game to play QB. Rodgers got it done and I contend there are very few QB's who could have done the same. Perhaps as few as.......what? Three? Five? Who knows? But I do know that we have one of them.

I think Favre is no longer capable of winning (if he were QB of this Packers team) a game like we saw Sunday. Is he capable of winning a game like Minny at Cleveland? Yes, he did it. Is he capable of QB'ing the Vikings to a win over the Bears? I think so. Is he capable of QB'ing the Vikings to a Super Bowl? Maybe. But we weren't asked these questions.

Just for fun.......here's another question we weren't asked. How many QB's could have led the Vikings to a win at Cleveland last Sunday? 30? 40? More? Less?

[Freak Out]

What if Napoleon had a B52 bomber at Waterloo?

[hoosier]

What if Napoleon had a B52 bomber at Waterloo?

He would have crashed it. No fuel.

[red]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

First, the vikes won the game, just as the pack won theirs.

Second, if anyone "won" the game his name is AD.

i'm with ty on this one

it almost made me sick that the media was saying brad won his first game as a viking. they made it out that somehow biff was the reason they won the game

it was almost a footnote that AP ran for 180 yards and scored 3 td's. if any single player was responsible for that win it was ap

[Bossman641]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

First, the vikes won the game, just as the pack won theirs.

Second, if anyone "won" the game his name is AD.

i'm with ty on this one

it almost made me sick that the media was saying brad won his first game as a viking. they made it out that somehow biff was the reason they won the game

it was almost a footnote that AP ran for 180 yards and scored 3 td's. if any single player was responsible for that win it was ap

Not so fast Red

You are forgetting that magical "it" Favre has. That unique quality that makes defenders react more quickly and jump higher, offensive players possess the strength of 10 men and make plays unknown to man, special teamers kick further and run faster, and also protects those around him from suffering injury.

AP may have run for 180 yards and 3 TD, but he has Favre to thank for it.

[SnakeLH2006]

Okay, Ty, first of all, enough with the "Bert" crap. He gets disrespected enough already.

If Brent Favre had started for the Pack...

That had me in stiches, Fritz.... :lol:

As far as Brent being joyless....I dunno he looked happy here trying to injure his own WR....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24BRveFlcKg

I agree that he is just a game manager with a weak ass arm at this point. What's scary for the Vike's is what happens when they are down by 10 to some team this season and Brent tries winging up some ducks to the convention with that beat up arm? It's gonna look like Ty Detmer winding up to chuck a 25 yard bomb..... :shock: I think Brent is gonna have to be a game manager until that arm looks better (if it ever does)....

[Scott Campbell]

What if Napoleon had a B52 bomber at Waterloo?


What the hell is he doing in Iowa?

[Fritz]

If Napoleon had a B52 at Waterloo, the Packers would have won.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What if Napoleon had a B52 bomber at Waterloo?

What if Sheepshead couldn't post youtube vids?

[MOBB DEEP]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

First, the vikes won the game, just as the pack won theirs.

Second, if anyone "won" the game his name is AD.

i'm with ty on this one

it almost made me sick that the media was saying brad won his first game as a viking. they made it out that somehow biff was the reason they won the game

it was almost a footnote that AP ran for 180 yards and scored 3 td's. if any single player was responsible for that win it was ap

Not so fast Red

You are forgetting that magical "it" Favre has. That unique quality that makes defenders react more quickly and jump higher, offensive players possess the strength of 10 men and make plays unknown to man, special teamers kick further and run faster, and also protects those around him from suffering injury.

AP may have run for 180 yards and 3 TD, but he has Favre to thank for it.

Pretty funny bossy

[red]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

First, the vikes won the game, just as the pack won theirs.

Second, if anyone "won" the game his name is AD.

i'm with ty on this one

it almost made me sick that the media was saying brad won his first game as a viking. they made it out that somehow biff was the reason they won the game

it was almost a footnote that AP ran for 180 yards and scored 3 td's. if any single player was responsible for that win it was ap

Not so fast Red

You are forgetting that magical "it" Favre has. That unique quality that makes defenders react more quickly and jump higher, offensive players possess the strength of 10 men and make plays unknown to man, special teamers kick further and run faster, and also protects those around him from suffering injury.

AP may have run for 180 yards and 3 TD, but he has Favre to thank for it.

well......

good point

[MJZiggy]

What if Napoleon had a B52 bomber at Waterloo?

What if Sheepshead couldn't post youtube vids?

The world would implode...

[Gunakor]

This is just childish. All I know is Mr. Favre won another game(the most of anyone ever) and well Mr. Rodgers won #7. Talk to me when he reaches 100. (not likely)

You spend a lot of time reliving your preferred version of the past, don't you. First of all, Favre didn't win all those games by himself. For half of his Packer career he had 2 bookend tackles protecting him, not a sieve like Allan Barbre letting everything get through to him. So at least acknowledge the differences between the two eras outside of who's playing quarterback. The team is different too.

Second, that wasn't the question in the first place. The question wasn't who has won more games over their careers, or even who played better on Sunday. The question was, could Favre have won the game against the Bears under the same circumstances Rodgers was under. Assuming you saw the Vikings game too and had the privilege of seeing Favre's slow ass get plastered a couple times himself while doing absolutely nothing of note individually (other than ride comfortably on the back of Adrian Peterson to victory), judge for yourself what he could or could not have accomplished against the Chicago Bears on September 13, 2009 had he still been under center for the Green Bay Packers of 2009.

I don't think he could have done a whole lot, simply because I think he's have spent twice as much time on the ground as Rodgers. And I'm pretty sure that's what the point of this thread is. Regardless how good a QB you are, you aren't gonna complete any passes or score any touchdowns while lying on your back. Even if he is still an elite talent at QB, he'd be staring at the sky too often to make a difference.

[Administrator]

Enough Favre banter on both sides. take it backchannel or better - To a Viking board.

[superfan]

...

[MOBB DEEP]

LOL...this thread appears to be quite one-sided

Cats need therapy

[Tyrone Bigguns]

LOL...this thread appears to be quite one-sided

Cats need therapy

Mite start with yourself.

Why you feel the need to start shit up again. You see what the admin wrote.