Futile attempt to win now or building to win in 3-4 years?

[Cheesehead4]

Which would you prefer?

It's become increasingly annoying to hear everyone say that the team isn't doing enough to support Favre in his last bid to win a championship. Since when does a team have to appease their Hall-of-Fame QB on the decline?Blasphemy maybe, but this team, regardless of FA/draft signings, is a few years away from competing for a title. Why make move that have a deletrious effect on the future when winning now really isn't an option.

Management has been hogtied by Favre for the past several years, awaiting his announcement of retirement or not. What if he stays another year? A first-round pick on Rodgers would have been wasted.

That said, I don't blame them at all for not loading up on overpriced FA talent just to give it one last run with Favre. Two Pro-Bowl FA signings wouldn't make this a 11-5 team I don't think.

It's proven that great teams are built through the draft and avoiding the hype in signings free agents (i.e. Patriots).

One can only hope that this team is building for a run two years down the road that will last three seasons... with another QB at the helm.

[Bretsky]

Ted Thompson would definitely agree with you.

The time to load up on quality free agents was last year when we have 30 plus million dollars; we added Woodsen and Pickett but that was not nearly enough. Put two good drafts on top of that and a key free agent this year and IMO next year we could have been a NFC contender. But given what has occured it's not happening anymore.

A couple more points

Several have pointed this out before, but would it have really hurt to add a couple cheap free agents that could have helped....Justin Griffith mode or Eric Johnson mode ? What growth are we stunting by doing that ?

Either way my expectations for the next couple seasons are not high. I don't buy the expectations that we are going to be a contender for several years in a row after Favre leaves; hopefully I'm wrong.

[Packnut]

Which would you prefer?

It's become increasingly annoying to hear everyone say that the team isn't doing enough to support Favre in his last bid to win a championship. Since when does a team have to appease their Hall-of-Fame QB on the decline?Blasphemy maybe, but this team, regardless of FA/draft signings, is a few years away from competing for a title. Why make move that have a deletrious effect on the future when winning now really isn't an option.

Management has been hogtied by Favre for the past several years, awaiting his announcement of retirement or not. What if he stays another year? A first-round pick on Rodgers would have been wasted.

That said, I don't blame them at all for not loading up on overpriced FA talent just to give it one last run with Favre. Two Pro-Bowl FA signings wouldn't make this a 11-5 team I don't think.

It's proven that great teams are built through the draft and avoiding the hype in signings free agents (i.e. Patriots).

One can only hope that this team is building for a run two years down the road that will last three seasons... with another QB at the helm.

I disagree with your opinion on oh so many levels! The "declining" Favre as you call him has had 1 WR and a terrible O-line along with no running game for the last few years. Ya think those FACTS might have something to do with why Favre has declined? May-be in your world, QB's can win on their own with no help but alas, the real world is a tad different.

As for the loading up on over-priced FA's, well that has become the mantra of the TT crew has'nt it? It's like one of those political catch phrases, it sounds good, but when examined, means nothing. Eric Johnson costs 2 mill for 1 year with no future risk. Griffith cost 3 mill but let's say 3.5 in order to entice him to come here for 3 yrs. Johnson would be a huge up-grade over Franks and that cannot be disputed. We are gonna be weak at FB this season and again Griffith would have been an up-grade. I also advocated bringing Hamlin here and he also was signed for reasonable money. I believe those 3 moves would have made us a play-off team and none of them would have damaged the future in any way shape or form.

As for your last point about Favre not being Owed anything, well that is a matter of pure opinion. May-be if you had to sit through the number of clowns that played QB in the 70's and 80's, you'd have a much deeper admiration for Favre than you do. Here are some FACTS that put your opinion to shame:

1- Brett Favre, not Wolf or Holmgren, brought this organization back from being the laughingstock of the NFL. One could argue that Favre is on the same level as Lombardi when it comes to the respect level that the football world has for them. Because of playing in the modern age, Favre has done more for this team than ANY other player in it's history. #04 is known and respected world wide. He's the reason why ANY Packer games are shown in prime time. He is and has been the "face" of the Packers for a long long time.

2- In the world of the "me first" players, Brett has always been a team player. He's never threatened to hold out or even talk about wanting more money. The passion Favre plays with is un-matched by any other player. One thing Packer fans can say about Favre, is that he has always made us proud, even through difficult times like the pain pill episode.

3- Lastly and most importantly, is the fact that Favre has played hurt both physically and emotionally because he wanted so badly for this team to win. We all know, no other player in the league could have played with the pain Brett has had and not just play, but play well. Sprained ankles, seperated shoulders, and broken thumbs have not kept him out. The term "warrior" is thrown about the NFL like candy, but we all know that the meaning of "warrior" in the NFL is Brett Favre. He has given everything to the Green Bay Packers and he has given everything to us fans. No matter what the circumstance, we always knew every week that #4 would give 110% and we knew with him, there always was a chance to win.

The problem with you and some others is that Favre has been around so long, that he's been taken for granted. You guys are gonna be in for a very rude awakening when Favre leaves.

There were moves Thompson could have made to give Favre one more shot that would not have sacrificed the future from re-signing Walker to signing a few medium priced, low risk FA's. With all Favre has given us, I don't believe it was to much to ask for Teddy to give Brett 1 more shot......

[run pMc]

I'm not certain Justin Griffith was a cheap free agent. IIRC, he signed a deal averaging somewhere around $3M/yr...which is a lot for a FB with some miles on him.

I'd like to see TT more active in the FA market. Then again, there aren't a lot of FA which are exciting. This is a bad year for quality FA's.

[Tony Oday]

1- Brett Favre, not Wolf or Holmgren, brought this organization back from being the laughingstock of the NFL. One could argue that Favre is on the same level as Lombardi when it comes to the respect level that the football world has for them. Because of playing in the modern age, Favre has done more for this team than ANY other player in it's history. #04 is known and respected world wide. He's the reason why ANY Packer games are shown in prime time. He is and has been the "face" of the Packers for a long long time.



I would disagree with this. Reggie White brought this franchise back, and Favre sustained what Reggie brought here.

[Packnut]

I'm not certain Justin Griffith was a cheap free agent. IIRC, he signed a deal averaging somewhere around $3M/yr...which is a lot for a FB with some miles on him.

I'd like to see TT more active in the FA market. Then again, there aren't a lot of FA which are exciting. This is a bad year for quality FA's.

In the scheme of things with the money being thrown around, Griffith was cheap in comparison to others. He knows the system and is an obvious up-grade over what we have now. I always have believed Henderson was'nt used enough in the pass game, but he was an effective weapon. Griffith is just as good at slipping into the flat and making the catch. FB is an important part of the WC offense and ya just can't throw anyone in there as we learned last season.

[Packnut]

1- Brett Favre, not Wolf or Holmgren, brought this organization back from being the laughingstock of the NFL. One could argue that Favre is on the same level as Lombardi when it comes to the respect level that the football world has for them. Because of playing in the modern age, Favre has done more for this team than ANY other player in it's history. #04 is known and respected world wide. He's the reason why ANY Packer games are shown in prime time. He is and has been the "face" of the Packers for a long long time.



I would disagree with this. Reggie White brought this franchise back, and Favre sustained what Reggie brought here.

Did'nt Reggie state that Favre was a HUGE reason he came to GB? Remember the Philly game when Brett seperated his shoulder and came back in? White said that impressed the hell out of him and made him want to play with #4. Without Favre, Reggie does'nt come to GB.

[vince]

The "declining" Favre as you call him has had 1 WR and a terrible O-line along with no running game for the last few years. Ya think those FACTS might have something to do with why Favre has declined? May-be in your world, QB's can win on their own with no help but alas, the real world is a tad different.
Packnut you obviously have no idea whatsoever what a FACT really is, and you throw that word around on this board, accusing people of not using FACTS to support their arguments, more than anyone.

Look it up maybe... Here's a link for you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

1. Your OPINION that Greg Jennings sucks is debatable to say the least. Enough on that.
2. The "terrible O-line" you state as fact was IN FACT, fifth in the league in sacks allowed and paved the way for the 13th best rushing attack in the league last year. Max protect schemes and all, it's clear that it's highly debatable whether the o-line was "terrible."
3. Your "no running game" OPINION was better than 19 other teams in the league. What "FACTS" would you use to describe those teams' running games?

I don't disagree with you that Favre is a great QB and has been single biggest asset this team has had for the last two generations of football teams. We all have great admiration for the accomplishments of Favre, but my God, if you're going to be the FACT nazi and throwing that word around all over the place, please know what the hell you're talking about and use it consistently with it's actual meaning.

[esoxx]

Your thread is biased in the title. How do you know a win-now approach would be futile? Loading up and going after it in a watered down NFC, it's not that far-fetched to do some real damage. I'm not advocating that approach btw.

A futile win now approach or wait 3-4 yrs. No, it doesn't just work like that. Like the draft, you just don't know what would happen.

TT's plan is the rebuild, so fine. But to simply dismiss a different approach as futile is invalid.

And I really dislike the way Favre has hogtied this team the last several years. :roll:

[Packnut]

The "declining" Favre as you call him has had 1 WR and a terrible O-line along with no running game for the last few years. Ya think those FACTS might have something to do with why Favre has declined? May-be in your world, QB's can win on their own with no help but alas, the real world is a tad different.
Packnut you obviously have no idea whatsoever what a FACT really is, and you throw that word around on this board, accusing people of not using FACTS to support their arguments, more than anyone.

Look it up maybe... Here's a link for you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

1. Your OPINION that Greg Jennings sucks is debatable to say the least. Enough on that.
2. The "terrible O-line" you state as fact was IN FACT, fifth in the league in sacks allowed and paved the way for the 13th best rushing attack in the league last year. Max protect schemes and all, it's clear that it's highly debatable whether the o-line was "terrible."
3. Your "no running game" OPINION was better than 19 other teams in the league. What "FACTS" would you use to describe those teams' running games?

I don't disagree with you that Favre is a great QB and has been single biggest asset this team has had for the last two generations of football teams. We all have great admiration for the accomplishments of Favre, but my God, if you're going to be the FACT nazi and throwing that word around all over the place, please know what the hell you're talking about and use it consistently with it's actual meaning.


I never said Jennings sucked. I said he disappeared most of the time in the 2nd half of the season and that the jury was still out on him. As far as the o-line, try learning what maximum protection is and then get back to me. Also go back and watch how the o-line was man-handeled by the Vikes, Pats and Jets. It has "potential" just like Jennings but until "potential" translates into production on the field, it can't be used as fact.

The run game was ranked 23rd last season and 30th in 05. I have no idea what the hell your watching but get your facts straight. Is it that hard to go to NFL.com and look up stats? If it is to challenging, I'd be more than happy to explain how they work for you.

I guess calling me names like Nazi is suppossed to aggravate me, but in reality it speaks volumes about you. When people have little or no facts to argue with, they usually resort to name calling out of frustration. I suggest we just ignore each other as this will be my last response to you because frankly your just not worth a minute of my time......

[wist43]

The team isn't strong enough to worry about "winning now"... and, Favre will definitely be gone by the time some of these projects begin to pay dividends.

The Packers have no "heir apparent" at QB... so thinking that they'll be competing for a SB in 3-4 years is pretty optimistic.

Besides no QB, in 3-4 years you'll have to fill the holes left by Woodson, Harris, Pickett, Clifton, Franks, Tauscher... throw in injuries and a few 1st and 2nd round busts (which there are bound to be at least a couple over the course of the next 3-4 years), and you may have a better foundation, but they're really no closer to winning a SB than they are today.

[woodbuck27]

The team isn't strong enough to worry about "winning now"... and, Favre will definitely be gone by the time some of these projects begin to pay dividends.

The Packers have no "heir apparent" at QB... so thinking that they'll be competing for a SB in 3-4 years is pretty optimistic.

Besides no QB, in 3-4 years you'll have to fill the holes left by Woodson, Harris, Pickett, Clifton, Franks, Tauscher... throw in injuries and a few 1st and 2nd round busts (which there are bound to be at least a couple over the course of the next 3-4 years), and you may have a better foundation, but they're really no closer to winning a SB than they are today.

Add in 'the fact' that in those 3-4 years that the really good draft picks that have matured and are NFL ready will be after their payday or become FA's.

They'll be hungry for their ring. Ted Thompson will have to have the team set and have to pay up or see them run.

When you factor that in you will see why managing the CAP is so important. You had better bring in solid FA's with that money and make wise trades. Ted believes that it will be done with his skills in the draft.

What attracts talent to a team is the talent that already exists on that team and the total climate that attracts any player to the team. A large part of that climate is the quality of the teams GM and the success of the teams coaching staff. The attitude or swagger of that team as a winner is very important.

Green Bay misses out there now.

As we lose our aging Vet's they will have to be replaced by draft picks (the Ted Thompson way) and that is a crap shoot.

The Ted Thompson way will be studied carefully over the next 2-3 seasons. Packer fans arn't all that enchanted now.

I predict that after Favre more will be added to that group.

Higher ticket prices as seating at Lambeau reflects the product on the field and more fans join the 'we should have seen this coming group'.

Ted Thompson will be fired to placate Packer fans who's reaction to TT as our GM is reflected poorly in the polls and by empty seats at Lambeau.

It starts all over again.

Another GM with a new coaching staff and a new attitide and philosophy. Everything will be OK.

Packer fans will look back whistfully on the latter Favre years, and wonder why his talents and contributions to the Green Bay Packers wern't supported by GM's unable to give him the weapons or otherwise support that he needed.

The time to try to win has been Favre's time.

Soon. . . that's gone !

[Cheesehead4]

So basically... can't win now... or next year... or the year after that... or the year after that...

2012, watch out!

[Patler]

Generally teams that push through into the level of playoff favorites from the level of playoff hopefuls have one or two drafts that supply an inordinately high number of contributers, to go along with a few other draft picks from other years, a few FAs and a few hold-over veterans.

GB had that after 1995 with Newsome, Holland, Henderson, Williams, Freeman, Jervey and Timmerman, to go along with Simmons, Teague, Dotson, Evans and Kuberski from 1993. Throw in a Favre, White, Taylor, Levens, Brooks and Edgar Bennett and Chmura from about the same time, with holdovers like Tony Bennett, LeRoy Butler, and Sterling Sharpe and in a couple seasons the character of the team has changed.

Can Hawk, Colledge, Jennings, Spitz, Blackmon, Moll, Jolly and Culver have a similar impact for the current Packers? Can the 2007 draft class? If neither does, the Packers will not become playoff favorites anytime soon, just playoff hopefuls.

[BooHoo]

Good comments Patler. I am very anxious to see what this recent draft class can do. Are there any pro-bowlers? Will the draft class of 2006 shine? Is TT's quantity vs quality trend helps us reach the playoffs? Will TT's "we will stick with our own guys" vs high-priced free agents get us to the playoffs?

I wish I could be more optimistic about our chances this year. I usually am a "the glass is half full guy" but I am suspect about this season. Thinking we go 6-10 or maybe 7-9. :cow:

[The Shadow]

Which would you prefer?

It's become increasingly annoying to hear everyone say that the team isn't doing enough to support Favre in his last bid to win a championship. Since when does a team have to appease their Hall-of-Fame QB on the decline?Blasphemy maybe, but this team, regardless of FA/draft signings, is a few years away from competing for a title. Why make move that have a deletrious effect on the future when winning now really isn't an option.
It's proven that great teams are built through the draft and avoiding the hype in signings free agents (i.e. Patriots).
One can only hope that this team is building for a run two years down the road that will last three seasons... with another QB at the helm.

Agree!


As for your last point about Favre not being Owed anything, well that is a matter of pure opinion. May-be if you had to sit through the number of clowns that played QB in the 70's and 80's, you'd have a much deeper admiration for Favre than you do.

I certainly did, as well as the decline in the late 60's.
I like Favre - great player.
Are his personal stats, image, and and legacies more important than the Green Bay Packers?
No.
He is a great player on a team that has been fortunate enough to have had many great players over the years.

1- Brett Favre, not Wolf or Holmgren, brought this organization back from being the laughingstock of the NFL. One could argue that Favre is on the same level as Lombardi when it comes to the respect level that the football world has for them. Because of playing in the modern age, Favre has done more for this team than ANY other player in it's history.[/i]

Whoa, Sparky.
When appreciation for a great football player devolves into unabashed
Messiah worship, it casts severe cold water on the overall legitimacy of the entire agrument.
Let's be logical : no Wolf, no Favre. No Wolf, no Holmgren. No Holmgren, Favre remains the talented yet immature wildboy the Falcons gave up on.
The same 'level' [i]as Lombardi???????????????????????????????????
What are you smoking???

There were moves Thompson could have made to give Favre one more shot that would not have sacrificed the future from re-signing Walker to signing a few medium priced, low risk FA's. With all Favre has given us, I don't believe it was to much to ask for Teddy to give Brett 1 more shot......

Favre has received enough money to keep his family super rich for many, many generations. He could walk away now (come to think of it, he could have walked away years ago) and never had to grab the lunchbucket with the rest of us.
Favre has received the fawning, adoring worship (and been absolved of each & every one of his football sins) of his Cult.
Favre has carved his place as an alltime NFL great.

Favre has not been 'cheated' regarding championships. He won one (and it should be pointed out that that single championship came when he had the most talented team in the NFL as his supporting cast!). He had a second Super Bowl within his grasp. He had a winnable Philly game that wound up lost on a panicked lameduck pass.
He's had chances. Any less than Elway? Marino?
Nope.

I want to see the Packers built the right way - for the long haul - and not to patch and plug to satisfy the Cult's demands.

[woodbuck27]

1- Brett Favre, not Wolf or Holmgren, brought this organization back from being the laughingstock of the NFL. One could argue that Favre is on the same level as Lombardi when it comes to the respect level that the football world has for them. Because of playing in the modern age, Favre has done more for this team than ANY other player in it's history. #04 is known and respected world wide. He's the reason why ANY Packer games are shown in prime time. He is and has been the "face" of the Packers for a long long time.



I would disagree with this. Reggie White brought this franchise back, and Favre sustained what Reggie brought here.

Did'nt Reggie state that Favre was a HUGE reason he came to GB? Remember the Philly game when Brett seperated his shoulder and came back in? White said that impressed the hell out of him and made him want to play with #4. Without Favre, Reggie does'nt come to GB.

You got that fact right Packnut. :)

[Bretsky]

Your thread is biased in the title. How do you know a win-now approach would be futile? Loading up and going after it in a watered down NFC, it's not that far-fetched to do some real damage. I'm not advocating that approach btw.

A futile win now approach or wait 3-4 yrs. No, it doesn't just work like that. Like the draft, you just don't know what would happen.

TT's plan is the rebuild, so fine. But to simply dismiss a different approach as futile is invalid.

And I really dislike the way Favre has hogtied this team the last several years. :roll:

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

[mraynrand]

Management has been hogtied by Favre for the past several years, awaiting his announcement of retirement or not. What if he stays another year? A first-round pick on Rodgers would have been wasted.


I have to disagree with this point. How is it a certainty that the A rod pick is wasted, even if Favre sticks around for another year? Who knows what hs progression would be and/or will be with or without Favre? All that really matters is whether he can actually play well when his time comes. Assuming that's next year, what's the problem? Sure, he may require a year or two to get up to speed, but perhaps not. The fact that the Packers picked him suggests they were planning for the future, whenever Favre isn't around. What's that old line - The hardest time to find a QB is when you don't have one. Pehaps the Packers were trying to avoid that. perhaps it HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FAVRE 'hogtying' them - just common sense drafting - if you have a QB rated as the best QB in the draft and he drops to you, you pick him.

And for the record, I thin TT has now buuilt up a tremendous amount of depth on the squad. That should have reprecussions on 'teams and in case of injuries. This team may only be a year away from seriously competing, even with Favre gone. Two, maybe three guys elevate their game to pro bowl level THIS year, and they might win 10 games.

[vince]

I never said Jennings sucked. I said he disappeared most of the time in the 2nd half of the season and that the jury was still out on him. As far as the o-line, try learning what maximum protection is and then get back to me. Also go back and watch how the o-line was man-handeled by the Vikes, Pats and Jets. It has "potential" just like Jennings but until "potential" translates into production on the field, it can't be used as fact.
Now you're getting the point. And yes I understand perfectly what max protect is, but thanks again for your suggestion.


The run game was ranked 23rd last season and 30th in 05. I have no idea what the hell your watching but get your facts straight. Is it that hard to go to NFL.com and look up stats? If it is to challenging, I'd be more than happy to explain how they work for you.
Thanks for the offer Packnut, but I can read the statistics just fine. I was going from memory and I cited the defensive ranking rather than the offensive rushing ranking. The fact is the Packers ranked a rather average 18th in yds. per rushing attempt in '06 and 5th in fewest sacks allowed.

The point is - regardless whether your or my opinion of that performance is "terrible", "pedestrian", "started terrible and improved as the season progressed", "average in rushing and pretty damn good in pass protection", or something else, the fact remains that those are opinions - not facts, as you wrongly asserted your opinion to be.


I guess calling me names like Nazi is suppossed to aggravate me, but in reality it speaks volumes about you. When people have little or no facts to argue with, they usually resort to name calling out of frustration. I suggest we just ignore each other as this will be my last response to you because frankly your just not worth a minute of my time......

I'm not concerned whether you're aggravated or don't care about the post. The description "fact nazi" was used (as it is commonly used) to mean "a domineering and intolerant person." In my opinion, the majority of your posts show exactly those qualities. But it is your posts that I should have referred to, not you personally. Sorry about that.

The utter hypocrisy in your post, though, is noteworthy. For you to put forth such a blatantly false appearance and insinuate that you're above calling others names is an absolute joke.

Does the name "sheep" ring a bell to you, Packnut? Go back through your posts the last few days. You'll find it. I have no doubt whatsoever that I could easily find at least 10 instances where you personally denigrated other posters here with a derogatory name or description. Let me know if you want me to go through the exercise of doing so.

And while I already understand your perceptions and motivations for the style of your posts, at least you have explicitly explained (at least in part) why you choose to throw around personal attacks the way you have to date. My intent, however, was just the opposite. It was to demonstrate to you and others that YOU are the one who didn't put forth facts, but wrongly explicitly stated that they were.

Regarding your suggestion that we avoid each others posts... Obviously, if you want to ignore my posts, that's your choice and I have no problem with that. Obviously, you have every right to defend yourself however, because when you and every other poster puts forth their assertions in this public forum, all other posters have the right to respond - and possibly challenge - those assertions. I don't get the opportunity to post as much as I'd like, but when I can, I intend to continue responding to any and all posts here, including yours.

[The Shadow]

Tempers flare!

[Bretsky]

Tempers flare!

Seems like every time the Pro or Anti TT or Win Now or Win Later threads comes up this happens

It'd be nice if we'd get some more news, but it's going to be along offseason.

[Scott Campbell]

The point is - regardless whether your or my opinion of that performance is "terrible", "pedestrian", "started terrible and improved as the season progressed", "average in rushing and pretty damn good in pass protection", or something else, the fact remains that those are opinions - not facts, as you wrongly asserted your opinion to be.


It's not just Packnut - there's alot of that goes on in here. People cite facts that support some conclusion, but then pass that conclusion off as another of the facts.

[Merlin]

My 2 cents:

I want to win EVERY YEAR, regardless of who the QB is. Favre is not holding anyone hostage, the Packers should be happy they still have a top QB (yes he still is) on their team. You don't build the team for "Favre". But on the other hand, you don't tie his one hand behind his back and say "win" (although knowing Favre he probably could).

Face it, TT's rebuilding is designed to let Favre ride off into the sunset SOONER, not later. He has been trying for 3 years to push him out with his idiotic "no offense" philosophy. We still have Shittenheimer as a coach so that should tell you how committed to winning NOW that we really are.

Rebuilding in the age of the CBA and FA doesn't take YEARS, try Year. If we are not at least in the playoffs this year, TT needs to go. Right now, I just don't see it.

[packinpatland]

My 2 cents:

I want to win EVERY YEAR, regardless of who the QB is. Favre is not holding anyone hostage, the Packers should be happy they still have a top QB (yes he still is) on their team. You don't build the team for "Favre". But on the other hand, you don't tie his one hand behind his back and say "win" (although knowing Favre he probably could).

Face it, TT's rebuilding is designed to let Favre ride off into the sunset SOONER, not later. He has been trying for 3 years to push him out with his idiotic "no offense" philosophy. We still have Shittenheimer as a coach so that should tell you how committed to winning NOW that we really are.

Rebuilding in the age of the CBA and FA doesn't take YEARS, try Year. If we are not at least in the playoffs this year, TT needs to go. Right now, I just don't see it.

Good one. :) Worth more than just 2 cents.

[Patler]

It's hard to say how much Favre's indecision influenced the selection of Rogers, but I have to believe that it had some influence. Favre has been threatening retirement for a long time already, perhaps causing the Packers to believe a replacement needed to be brought in ASAP. Don't forget it was widely reported that the Packers would have taken J.P. Losman in 2004 if Buffalo hadn't jumped ahead of them.

If Favre had said in 2004 - 2005 that he intended to keep playing as long as he could, perhaps (just "perhaps") the Packers would have been less likely to invest a 1st round pick on a QB. The 2005 pick could have been used on someone like Logan Mankins, A DT, a CB, etc.. Then, having tested fate another year, 2006 may have seen the Packers by pass Hawk for Cutler or Leinart, or maybe they would have stayed with Hawk, and this year would have snatched Brady Quinn, since sooner or later Favre WILL retire!.

Its hard to say what might have been. Maybe even with a commitment from Favre the packers would have thought it was to much to pass up on a QB that somehow fell to them in 2005. If they had passed on Rodgers, it's even harder to say if that would have been better, or not at this point.

[Patler]

My 2 cents:

I want to win EVERY YEAR, regardless of who the QB is. Favre is not holding anyone hostage, the Packers should be happy they still have a top QB (yes he still is) on their team. You don't build the team for "Favre". But on the other hand, you don't tie his one hand behind his back and say "win" (although knowing Favre he probably could).

Face it, TT's rebuilding is designed to let Favre ride off into the sunset SOONER, not later. He has been trying for 3 years to push him out with his idiotic "no offense" philosophy. We still have Shittenheimer as a coach so that should tell you how committed to winning NOW that we really are.

Rebuilding in the age of the CBA and FA doesn't take YEARS, try Year. If we are not at least in the playoffs this year, TT needs to go. Right now, I just don't see it.

So Favre only wants to play if he has all the offensive tools even if it comes at the expense of the defense? Apparently you think Favre wouldn't want to play on a team with a lights out defense and a weak offense.

I don't think you are giving Favre or most professional athletes enough credit. Especially Favre, who I think would be very content to win the Super Bowl even if the offense averages only 15 points a game and he throws for 10 TDs the entire year.

Your argument presumes Favre enjoys playing only if the offense is dominant. I don't think that is true.

[packinpatland]

Which would you prefer?

It's become increasingly annoying to hear everyone say that the team isn't doing enough to support Favre in his last bid to win a championship. Since when does a team have to appease their Hall-of-Fame QB on the decline?Blasphemy maybe, but this team, regardless of FA/draft signings, is a few years away from competing for a title. Why make move that have a deletrious effect on the future when winning now really isn't an option.

Management has been hogtied by Favre for the past several years, awaiting his announcement of retirement or not. What if he stays another year? A first-round pick on Rodgers would have been wasted.

That said, I don't blame them at all for not loading up on overpriced FA talent just to give it one last run with Favre. Two Pro-Bowl FA signings wouldn't make this a 11-5 team I don't think.

It's proven that great teams are built through the draft and avoiding the hype in signings free agents (i.e. Patriots).

One can only hope that this team is building for a run two years down the road that will last three seasons... with another QB at the helm.

It isn't about Favre. It's about the Packers. It's about a GM that should have been more 'Bellicheck-like' and beefed up the offense's key positions.

[packinpatland]

So basically... can't win now... or next year... or the year after that... or the year after that...

2012, watch out!

Gotta love a good cynic. :lol:

[Patler]

He has been trying for 3 years to push him out with his idiotic "no offense" philosophy.

"No offense" approach? On just the first days of the three drafts he has conducted, TT has drafted:

1 QB
3 wide receivers
1 runningback
2 guards

Thats seven offensive players in 9 rounds.

During those same 9 rounds (the first three each year) he drafted only 5 defensive players. So where has the primary emphasis been, offense or defense?

In addition he signed his own FA TE, who was a former Pro_bowler and signed two former first round draft picks in Gardner and Robinson.

To say TT has ignored the offense is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

[mraynrand]

If Favre had said in 2004 - 2005 that he intended to keep playing as long as he could, perhaps (just "perhaps") the Packers would have been less likely to invest a 1st round pick on a QB.

I don't buy this point - except the 'perhaps' part. 1 - Favre was in his 14th season - a QB that age, no matter how well he's playing can get hurt at any point - think Rich Gannon, Steve Young, etc. (yes I realize any QB and any player can get hurt at any time, but an old QB is FRAGILE ) - the point is that the Packers were terribly thin at backup QB and needed to groom a successor or bring in a capable vet - or both. 2 - TT thinks like Wolf, and Wolf tried to draft a QB every year. 3 - I'll repeat the adage that the toughest time to find a QB is when you need one, so you keep taking chances to try and find your next QB. 4 - I think TT is stubbornly strict with regards to his philosophy - build through the draft, set a price on guys and don't budge, be TRUE TO YOR DRAFT BOARD - that is, IF A-rod was high on his draft board, he had to take him when he did.

[mraynrand]

He has been trying for 3 years to push him out with his idiotic "no offense" philosophy.


To say TT has ignored the offense is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

I completely agree with Patler here. TT isn't trying to drive Favre out at all. He's just building a team the according to his philosophy. Also, if you evaluate Favre fairly, he's still probably at the bottom of the top 10-15 QBs in the league, and why, other than for sentimental reasons, would you go for broke with a guy who's a year maybe two away from NFL oblivion. Yes, it may take forever to find a guy who can play near Favre's level, but it's not too hard to conceive of finding a decent replacement who can guide a carefully constructed team with a lot of depth.

[Patler]

If Favre had said in 2004 - 2005 that he intended to keep playing as long as he could, perhaps (just "perhaps") the Packers would have been less likely to invest a 1st round pick on a QB.

I don't buy this point - except the 'perhaps' part. 1 - Favre was in his 14th season - a QB that age, no matter how well he's playing can get hurt at any point - think Rich Gannon, Steve Young, etc. (yes I realize any QB and any player can get hurt at any time, but an old QB is FRAGILE ) - the point is that the Packers were terribly thin at backup QB and needed to groom a successor or bring in a capable vet - or both. 2 - TT thinks like Wolf, and Wolf tried to draft a QB every year. 3 - I'll repeat the adage that the toughest time to find a QB is when you need one, so you keep taking chances to try and find your next QB. 4 - I think TT is stubbornly strict with regards to his philosophy - build through the draft, set a price on guys and don't budge, be TRUE TO YOR DRAFT BOARD - that is, IF A-rod was high on his draft board, he had to take him when he did.

I wasn't implying they would have bypassed Rogers, I really don't know. That's why I said "perhaps". At the time they still had Pederson, so I think they felt "protected" in case of injury, but Pederson certainly wasn't the replacement for Favre if he retired. The question for the Packers was when would be the right time to begin grooming a replacement for Favre. If they felt Favre was likely to play 3 or 4 more years, they may have looked for a QB to work with in later rounds, like a Hasselbeck, Brunnell, Brooks, etc. and if one blossomed, great. But if they felt Favre would play at least 3 more years, would they have used a first round pick for a QB in 2005? I really don't know. As I said, they might still have looked at it as too good of an opportunity to let pass by, and taken Rogers anyway.

It's kind of fun to speculate though, because if they didn't take Rogers in 2005, they might have gotten Cutler or Leinart last year. If not, they probably would have had to go with Quinn this year.

[mraynrand]

It would have been interesting to see whether they might have actually traded down from #5 to get Leinert or Cutler and get another pick.

I still think TT would have drafted a QB pretty high, assuming the draft board cooperated, even had A-rod not been available. The reasoning is that it doesn't matter how long Favre SAYS he wants to play, rather the reality of the expected lifespan of a 14 year QB - you have to have his replacement ready to go - just like A-rod in that NE game last year (LOL).

[The Shadow]

Personally, I'm just glad they didn't get JaMarcus Russell.