ESPN anti-Favre article

[digitaldean]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2752544

This sounds like Bulldog.....

___________

Packers need new course, not an old hand at QB

By Mark Kreidler
Special to ESPN.com
Archive

So here comes Quarterback X for another year. He's your guy, because he's on the team you care about. You certainly deserve to know what you're getting for 2007, so let's take a quick, dispassionate look.

First off, your guy is 37, heading into his 17th year of getting bashed around in the NFL. Not as nimble as he used to be, though he still moves. Good arm, trending toward the erratic these days. Total competitor. He never misses a start, even when maybe he should.

And here's the rest: Last season, your guy rated 25th among NFL quarterbacks who played regularly. He threw as many interceptions as touchdowns. The team around him was 4-8 before rallying to win its last four games and fall just short of the playoffs, and he sounded an awful lot like a retiring pro after that final Sunday, before he evidently changed his mind over the past few weeks.

You excited yet?

None of this is to suggest that Brett Favre is like anyone else in the NFL, nor that Favre's relationship with Green Bay and the Packers fans could ever be so casually reduced to numbers and skepticism. Favre is the modern history of the franchise. It's no problem imagining that Friday was a good day in Wisconsin, with the QB's announcement that he'll return for 2007 being made public via a story on the Biloxi, Miss., newspaper's Web site.

But for the Packers as a franchise, this is mixed news at best. It suggests, as much as anything, one more season of sliding sideways rather than charting a new course for the competitive future. Because the truth, once you scramble past the legend and the passion of Favre, is that a very mediocre quarterback is going to be behind center in Green Bay next season, albeit one chasing some luminous records.

It's weird, isn't it? Even putting mediocrity and Favre in the same sentence feels like an insult. But it's not, anymore; it is simply the statistical shape of things. Favre was once as dominating as any quarterback in memory, but the here and now is the unforgivable fact of life in the NFL. In the here and now, Favre is just OK back there.

I used to be much bigger on orchestrated endings to brilliant careers, but if there's one thing that years of covering sports suggests, it is that the Ted Williams walkoff scenario almost never happens. For every John Elway, there are three Michael Jordans, Roger Clemenses and Karl Malones. It's so hard to get away clean. No fault to Favre for seeking a better closing statement than 8-8.

For that matter, there's something inspired about a 37-year-old who can still command the position of quarterback, and Favre has lost none of his sense of command in the huddle and on the field. That's especially true for a Green Bay team that is mostly young and quite possibly still on the rise.

But Favre, straight-up, as the quarterback? Well, ratings can lie, but look again at those numbers from last season: 18 touchdowns vs. 18 interceptions; a 56 percent completion ratio; a 72.7 rating that not only put Favre near the bottom of the NFL but was well below his career number of 85.0 -- a more interesting and perhaps meaningful comparison.

Those are the kinds of numbers that may have explained the somewhat less than ecstatic reaction from the Packers' front office when the news broke. A statement quoted general manager Ted Thompson as saying, "The Packers are excited by his decision and look forward to a successful 2007 campaign." Way to lay on the superlatives, big man.

Favre sounded much more enthused than that, speaking of the team's youth in terms of its promise rather than its callowness. Of course, he has plenty of reasons beyond the simply competitive to want that to be so. Favre can pass Marino in career touchdown passes with seven in the coming season, and might even get Marino's all-time passing yardage record in the process.

Only a fool would fail to connect those possibilities with Favre's decision to give it one more run in 2007. No shame in that; it is simply a great player burnishing his own legend. But as for Quarterback X, the 25th-rated guy coming back for another shot in Green Bay, it's no surprise that some will curb their enthusiasm. They're not getting the legend. They're getting the veteran.
______________

[packers11]

I still think the msnbc article was worse... Plus this guy has no say on tv because he is not that big of an analyst (thank god)...

You should hear the bear fans, they are all bashing favre and saying they have two guaranteed wins next year... I SWEAR the colts better win, i cannot stand these morons... Good thing I live out of the area of all Bear fans... ahhh relaxing in New England with cry baby belichick :lol:

[digitaldean]

Yeah, I read his article too.

But you have former players telling him to come back because he can still play.

This idiot Ventre from MSNBC sounds bitter beyond belief.

Yes, Favre makes some throws that are :doh: , but he still represents the Packers best chance to make the playoffs and fight toward the Super Bowl. That is the goal isn't it?

He can still make plays that no QB in the league can.

[oregonpackfan]

You can count on this Packers fan from the West Coast cheeringly loudly for the Colts!

OPF

[RashanGary]

I don't know if it's anti-Favre as much as it's an artical that doens't take into account all circumstances and basically states "Favre is washed up" rather than leaving open the possibility that a 3 rookie line, an aging slowed RB and a rookie starting WR may have contributed to some of the struggles.

I'm not saying that Favre is the best in the game today but I'm also leaving open the possiblity that he has a better year in 07 than he has in either 06 or 05. Acctually, I think it's likely because I beleive that an offensive lines abilitiy to get a push in the red zone is the 2nd biggesrt factor after a good QB in why teams put up points. The Packers couldn't get 1 yard inside the 10 when it really mattered and teams played the pass with 4 and stopped the run with 7. It was just too easy to defned the short field. I think all of that is going to change in 2007 with what I suspect will be a highly upgraded line. I think Favre can go down with some glory and we'll have a very exciting football season coming up.

My view is an optimistic fan's view but there this guy's view is not being fair either. I think there is a good possiblity that Favre will prove this guy wrong. I'm not a die hard Favre fan like many here but I do htink he has enough to make one more big run. Acctually, I'm expecting it.

[RashanGary]

I don't know if it's anti-Favre as much as it's an artical that doens't take into account all circumstances and basically states "Favre is washed up" rather than leaving open the possibility that a 3 rookie line, an aging slowed RB and a rookie starting WR may have contributed to some of the struggles.

I'm not saying that Favre is the best in the game today but I'm also leaving open the possiblity that he has a better year in 07 than he has in either 06 or 05. Acctually, I think it's likely because I beleive that an offensive lines abilitiy to get a push in the red zone is the 2nd biggesrt factor after a good QB in why teams put up points. The Packers couldn't get 1 yard inside the 10 when it really mattered and teams played the pass with 4 and stopped the run with 7. It was just too easy to defned the short field. I think all of that is going to change in 2007 with what I suspect will be a highly upgraded line. I think Favre can go down with some glory and we'll have a very exciting football season coming up.

My view is an optimistic fan's view but there this guy's view is not being fair either. I think there is a good possiblity that Favre will prove this guy wrong. I'm not a die hard Favre fan like many here but I do htink he has enough to make one more big run. Acctually, I'm expecting it.

[oregonpackfan]

Greg Jennings,

I think you make some strong points, particularly with the offensive line improving.

What hurt Favre and the Packers was lacking a TE who could consistently get open and catch the ball. Injuries at the WR positions also hurt the Packers the past two seasons.

While Favre is nowhere near the QB that he once was, he can still be an effective and competitive NFL quarterback. Give him a strong supporting personnel on offense and he will lead the Packers to the playoffs next year.

OPF

[Bretsky]

I don't know if it's anti-Favre as much as it's an artical that doens't take into account all circumstances and basically states "Favre is washed up" rather than leaving open the possibility that a 3 rookie line, an aging slowed RB and a rookie starting WR may have contributed to some of the struggles.

I'm not saying that Favre is the best in the game today but I'm also leaving open the possiblity that he has a better year in 07 than he has in either 06 or 05. Acctually, I think it's likely because I beleive that an offensive lines abilitiy to get a push in the red zone is the 2nd biggesrt factor after a good QB in why teams put up points. The Packers couldn't get 1 yard inside the 10 when it really mattered and teams played the pass with 4 and stopped the run with 7. It was just too easy to defned the short field. I think all of that is going to change in 2007 with what I suspect will be a highly upgraded line. I think Favre can go down with some glory and we'll have a very exciting football season coming up.

My view is an optimistic fan's view but there this guy's view is not being fair either. I think there is a good possiblity that Favre will prove this guy wrong. I'm not a die hard Favre fan like many here but I do htink he has enough to make one more big run. Acctually, I'm expecting it.


Great points Greg,

Favre is not in his prime anymore, but he's certainly not a problem. With better blocking at WR options he can still be very effective and lead this team in the playoffs.

It is very important Jennings gets stronger in the offseason so his body is able to hold up better at the end of the year, and it's even more important TT is effective in bringing in a couple more receiving options.

[Fosco33]

I don't think Favre is washed up. I don't think the Packer's future is more bleak with Favre at the helm.

Pack finished 8-8 with 3 other teams and 16th overall in wins.

They didn't score as many points as in the past - due to a combo of what GJ and OPF stated above (aging RB, rookie line, injuries/suspensions/rookie WRs, poor TE play, poor red zone scoring).

A franchise needs to have a short term AND a long term plan in place - and they seem to have hit on both IMO. WIth Brett, you have a HOF QB with playoff/superbowl/MVP/probowl experience. Without Brett, you have an unknown with Rodgers and Martin... These guys can learn a lot from Brett as has been proven throughout his career (Hasselbeck, Brunell, etc, etc.). The Packers have got to believe that another high caliber QB can emerge from Favre's eventual retirement dust. That's only part of it though.

The Pack needs to address the holes above (WR, RB, TE). I think the Pack has an average shot at the playoffs and that in 2-3 years the team will be competitive again if TT makes some more good draft picks.

[Joemailman]

I don't know if it's anti-Favre as much as it's an artical that doens't take into account all circumstances and basically states "Favre is washed up" rather than leaving open the possibility that a 3 rookie line, an aging slowed RB and a rookie starting WR may have contributed to some of the struggles.

Greg,

I think you/re letting the writer off too easy here. Anyone that tries to judge Favre without taking into account the circumstances you talked about is unfairly anti-Favre. That said, I agree with the rest of your post. The 18/18 TD/INT ratio could easily turn into 24/15 with more production from Favre's teammates in the red zone.

[RashanGary]

I don't know if it's anti-Favre as much as it's an artical that doens't take into account all circumstances and basically states "Favre is washed up" rather than leaving open the possibility that a 3 rookie line, an aging slowed RB and a rookie starting WR may have contributed to some of the struggles.

Greg,

I think you/re letting the writer off too easy here. Anyone that tries to judge Favre without taking into account the circumstances you talked about is unfairly anti-Favre. That said, I agree with the rest of your post. The 18/18 TD/INT ratio could easily turn into 24/15 with more production from Favre's teammates in the red zone.

Yeah, I laughed when I reread what I wrote. I said "I dont' know if it's Favre bashing" and then pretty much said it was in my own words. I was like "I hope nobody notices that :)"

[RashanGary]

I am a very strong believer that the O-line was the biggest reason why we struggled in both the run and the redzone.

I was watching the Giants/Eagles *I think this was the game* and Aikman was broadcasting. I don't remember which team he was talking about but he said and I'm going to do the best paraphrase that I can here "The quality that separates teams who can score TD's in the redzone and teams that can't is the offensive lines ability to get a push"

When he said that, I remember thinking it just about summed up why the Packers struggles. I already beleived that before he said it, but from a guy who's been around the NFL for about 20 years now, it sort of gave me some validity.

That is part 1 of the Packers biggest problems on offense. The other part was also involving the O-line and the Packers inability to do anything but max protect on pass plays for almost the whole season. It makes it very hard for WR's to get open when the D only has 2 guys to cover.

Jennings getting hurt was a big kick in the sack as well and the WR's wern't stars but if you look at NE, WR's arn't as important as many think. I believe the QB is the main piece. I'd take one really good QB like Palmer or Rivers over 3 GREAT WR's like TO or Moss. I just don't think WR's are that important. I do think it's important that we solildify our depth but I'm more than happy with Jennings/Driver as the starting 2.

If I had to pick one position to really upgrade it would be RB but even if we don't do that, the Oline is going to make whoever runs look better than they did last year. I personally would rather get a dominate defense. Maybe a top notch Safety, a solid backup if not starter CB and a dominate DE. If those pieces were met, I could care less hwat happened on offense. We'd win a ton of games just becuase we have *I think* a solid O-line, Brett Favre and Donald Driver.

[KYPack]

I don't know if it's anti-Favre as much as it's an artical that doens't take into account all circumstances and basically states "Favre is washed up" rather than leaving open the possibility that a 3 rookie line, an aging slowed RB and a rookie starting WR may have contributed to some of the struggles.

Greg,

I think you/re letting the writer off too easy here. Anyone that tries to judge Favre without taking into account the circumstances you talked about is unfairly anti-Favre. That said, I agree with the rest of your post. The 18/18 TD/INT ratio could easily turn into 24/15 with more production from Favre's teammates in the red zone.

Agreed.

Bubba the Bumbler could have turned it into 21 - 15 with any reasonable play on his part.

[PlantPage55]

The fact is Brett Favre FURTHERS the development of our young offense. All these players become better because of him.

Also, how transparent is that line about the front office giving a "less than enthusiastic" response? COME ON!!!! What do you want Ted to do? Jump up and down on tables and chairs?! Jesus!!!!

[b bulldog]

My problem with him being back is simply that if he only plays one more season, they'll be starting an unproven QB IN 08 who will be leading a team that will have a shot at great things. I don't think that he is a problem but I also don't think he is a guy that will win you games but Rodgers probably isn't either. This is probably why they'll mold into a strong running team with a good young D. Brett gives them the best chance in 07 but age is also a factor in his decline in play in the past few seasons but he is still the teams best QB. It 's sort of a mess but hopefully everything works out so we all can be happy!

[b bulldog]

I almost forgot, I'd love to see Brett retire at years end with a Super Bowl win and a MVP type of a season. I get really sick of the retirement garbage as most do but I'd love to see him go out a winner!

[PlantPage55]

But if he didn't play this year, then we'd be starting an unproven guy in a year that we could be great ALSO!!!

Basically, it makes no difference WHEN Favre leaves - Rodgers is going to be uncertain the next year. I don't understand everyone's obsession with getting Rodgers his start. It DOESN'T MATTER.

[b bulldog]

They are a year away my friend

[PlantPage55]

We don't know that. There is no way of knowing that. The Redskins have been a year away for 3 years or so now.

The fact is, a truly great team - one that is ready for Super bowl contention - will be good enough to plop Rodgers in. Just as Rivers in San Diego, or even like Grossman in Chicago (and have the defense to fall back on in that case).

And if you don't think Rodgers can be as good as Rivers...well, then I would think we want to hold on to Favre as long as possible...no matter what.

[b bulldog]

Rodgers could be better than Brett already in a real game situation, I doubt it but you don't know cause he hasn't been given the chance. I don't really know about being a year away but my feeling is that they won't do quite as well in 07 as many think they will. The Redskins are a bad example, just because you buy top FA's, that doesn't mean your going to succeed. Basicly, that means just the oppositte. The best way to build is through the draft and than sprinkling in some UFA's. Rivers also has much more talent than Rodgers and we have nobody close to Tomlinson or Merriman not to mention Gates.

[PlantPage55]

Okay, but Rodgers should be able to get most of the development he needs sitting behind Brett Favre. Carson Palmer did it and Phillip Rivers did it.

If Rodgers was anywhere NEAR Favre, we would have heard about it. He would have showed me something while I was at training camp last year. And he may have even beat Brett Fave out DURING camp or pre-season.

We are going to sorely miss Favre when he's gone. He easily plays on par with any QB in the NFL besides Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Did you watch the playoffs? The QB play was AWFUL...from everyone.

Good QBs that missed the playoffs (Carson Palmer) had certain games where they looked pathetic as well.

Basically, Favre is our best chance. We win with him next year, and if we get close, and he believes we can do it again. He WILL come back. He KNOWS he can play and he wants to be a winner. So if we are headed in that direction of greatness - we will have him in '08 and we can be GREAT then.

If Favre did retire this last year...Do you honestly think that if Rodgers isn't as good as Rivers coming out of the gate - that we can then all of a sudden be great and get to the bowl in '08? I highly doubt it, unless our D is good enough to overcome. In this case, it doesn't matter whether its Brett or Aaron - so why not see a legend get his due?

I just don't think it makes sense ANY time you lose a legend!

[Joemailman]

The fact that Favre played in 2006 accelerated the process of getting the Packers back to being a Super Bowl contender, even if Favre will not get to enter the Promised Land. Starting 3-4 rookies on offense every week got these guys lots of valuable experience which will pay off in the near future. You think MM would have tried that with Rodgers at QB? No way. But they knew Favre could hold that situation together.

[PlantPage55]

The fact that Favre played in 2006 accelerated the process of getting the Packers back to being a Super Bowl contender, even if Favre will not get to enter the Promised Land. Starting 3-4 rookies on offense every week got these guys lots of valuable experience which will pay off in the near future. You think MM would have tried that with Rodgers at QB? No way. But they knew Favre could hold that situation together.

Yes. Yes yes yes. I honestly think that we MAY not have won A SINGLE game with Rodgers at QB last year. He would have constantly been under fire due to that line! He has no idea how to side step blitzes - and Favre is a master of that. That is NO way to learn to play QB in the NFL.

[b bulldog]

tHAT IS A GREAT POINT jOE BUT many coaches also like to see a young QB takes his knocks along with the young team he will be leading.

[b bulldog]

These are two philosophies that both show they can make great QB's, ask Payton Manning and Troy Aikman. This shows both ways do work but we differ on the results in GB.

[Pacopete4]

rodgers took one knock and was out for the count this season.. the end