PDA

View Full Version : DOES FAVRE NEED MORE OFFENSIVE PLAYMAKERS?/FAVRE'S REACTIONS



TopHat
05-10-2007, 06:01 AM
A HOT OFFSEASON & POSTDRAFT TOPIC ON PACKER SITES IS WHETHER BRET NEEDS MORE OFFENSIVE PLAYMAKERS? FANS, AFTER FAVRE'S COMMENTS, VOTE AND DECIDE.

http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=61&p=2&c=642293&ssf=1&RequestedURL=http%3a%2f%2fpackers.scout.com%2f2%2f 642293.html

Sydney Speaks! Favre a gun with no bullets By Harry Sydney

PackerReport.com’s Harry Sydney has digested the Packers Class of 2007 for the past week. While Sydney lauds general manager Ted Thompson for thinking long-term and building a solid foundation through recent drafts, he feels there is still a big-time need for more playmakers.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070507/PKR07/705070421/1959

Mike Vandermause column: With no key additions on offense, who will score? By Mike Vandermause

The regular season is four months away, so perhaps it's too soon to begin targeting the Green Bay Packers' potential problems. Who can say what hidden roster gem might emerge and make a major impact? But staring at the upcoming season from a distance, there's one nagging issue that can't be ignored. Assuming no significant free agents are signed, a giant question mark looms over the Packers' offense. This is a team that finished in the bottom third of the NFL in scoring last year and froze in the red zone. This is a team that lost featured running back Ahman Green. This is a team that signed no free agents on the offensive side of the ball.
How are the Packers going to score this season? If they ranked near the bottom of the league last year, what's going to change in 2007 with quarterback Brett Favre a year older and no experienced workhorse ready to replace Green? It's possible the Packers will become a spinoff of the Chicago Bears, in which they rely on a dominant defense and happily accept whatever production they can muster out of the offense. It's not the worst way to go, especially if you believe defense wins championships. Ted Thompson, for one, isn't sounding the alarms over a lack of talent on offense. "I think we have a pretty decent group of guys here," the Packers' general manager said of the offense after last weekend's draft. "As a team, I think the best way, the most consistent way, to get better is to get better from within. Our own guys have to try to keep getting better."
That seems to indicate no significant upgrades to the roster will be forthcoming. If the Packers improve on offense, they must do it with the talent on hand. Last year's rookie linemen — Daryn Colledge, Tony Moll and Jason Spitz — are bound to get better, as will promising receiver Greg Jennings. Does coach Mike McCarthy have enough talent to make the offense flourish? Or will the Packers be forced to scratch and claw for every touchdown? "I am never one to complain about who's not here," McCarthy said Sunday following the team's rookie orientation camp. "My focus has always been on who's here." It appears the Packers will use a running-back-by-committee approach that includes holdover Vernand Morency and rookie Brandon Jackson. "The role Ahman played and the job he did is going to have to be shared by some people," Thompson said. "I think it's going to be more of a group effort." That might be the Packers' best and only option, since Jackson never started a full season in college and Morency has been strictly a change-of-pace back in the NFL. History indicates rookie wide receivers typically aren't difference-makers, meaning big things shouldn't be expected of third-round draft choice James Jones or fifth-rounder David Clowney.
With the possible exception of Jackson, the rookie contributions shouldn't matter too much if McCarthy's theory about last year's offensive struggles is correct. "We didn't at the end of the day say, 'Well, we just don't have enough playmakers,'" McCarthy said. "We have players here that we need to put in position to be successful. If we do that and everybody does their job, we'll be more productive." Whether that's a realistic possibility or wishful thinking remains to be seen. __________________________________________________ ____________________________________

http://www.madison.com/tct/sports/packers/index.php?ntid=131974&ntpid=2

Mike Lucas: Packers, Thompson show no sense of urgency By Mike Lucas

The Green Bay Packers could do everyone a favor by signing Keyshawn Johnson to a contract. If nothing else, it would keep him off the air. The loquacious Johnson -- whose autobiography was aptly titled "Just Give Me the Damn Ball" -- was part of ESPN's marathon coverage last weekend of the National Football League draft. Johnson, the TV analyst, actually showed more potential than the insufferable Shannon Sharpe, who already has a steady CBS gig. Johnson might even be passable if he could keep himself out of the conversation occasionally. But, in his own third person world, that would be asking Keyshawn to do more than Keyshawn is willing to do.
What are the Packers willing to do to help the offense and Brett Favre? Not much, according to the national pundits, who have been critical of Ted Thompson and the way the passive Green Bay general manager has been avoiding Favre and his needs. Thompson came under attack Tuesday on ESPN's sitcom, Pardon the Interruption, during which it was reported that Thompson was unwilling to offer a fourth-round draft choice to the Oakland Raiders in exchange for Randy Moss. The suggestion was that Thompson was playing hardball with the Raiders (and maybe Favre) and really not that interested in acquiring Moss. Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson has showed no signs of wanting to upgrade his team quickly, instead he seems to be building for the future.
At least not at that price. At THAT price? We are talking about a fourth-round draft choice, which is what New England dealt to Oakland as part of the deal. There was also the matter of restructured contracts, whether it was Moss or quarterback Tom Brady taking less to make it work. Pardon the interruption here, but it was implied that the Packers just didn't work hard enough to make it work. Especially if the reports are true, and Thompson didn't think Moss was worth a fourth-round draft choice. Heck, Mike Sherman burned a third-round pick on a punter. But Moss didn't have the same value as an unproven fourth-rounder? Get serious. There were other instances last weekend where Thompson may have been guilty of an Ahman Green -- "dropping the ball" -- in the draft. As it is, he has yet to replace Green, adding to the ongoing mystery surrounding the relationship between Thompson and Favre. Do they have a relationship? Do they communicate about team needs? Not Favre's needs, but team needs. Offensively, the Packers need better skill position players. Not to extend Favre's career or appease Favre. But to move the ball, and the chains. How about appeasing the offense?
The NFL draft is akin to college recruiting. And there will be no attempt here to determine whether the Packers had a good draft or a bad draft. That will play out in time. But there is a growing perception nationally that Thompson and Favre are not on the same page. And maybe never have been. That can be traced to Thompson using a first-round pick on a quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, in his first draft with the Packers. How is Rodgers working out? Nobody knows, of course, which may be more of an indictment than endorsement of Thompson's selection. Right now, the general impression is that Thompson has little or no sense of urgency when it comes to Favre and whatever window is left for the Packers and Favre. And that comes off as self-defeating, if not selfish. You want selfish? Sign Keyshawn, a slow, possession receiver, who doesn't mind getting physical as a downfield blocker for the running game. Johnson will be 35 in July. Favre will be 38 in October, making for a potential odd and very old couple. Thompson wouldn't even have to part with a precious fourth-round draft choice to make this work, at whatever price.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/column/oates//index.php?ntid=132228&ntpid=2

Oates: Packers' draft still hot topic TOM OATES

For fans and critics, it has become the draft that won't go away. No matter how much they try to forget about the Green Bay Packers' performance in last weekend's NFL draft, people can't let it go. It seems everyone has a strong opinion on general manager Ted Thompson, though those opinions are deeply divided. Some wanted Thompson to trade for wide receiver Randy Moss, some were violently opposed to it. Some wanted him to draft an offensive playmaker in the first round, some wanted him to take the best available player. Some wanted him to trade up for a halfback, some wanted him to trade down and gather additional picks.
The only thing people seem to agree on is that quarterback Brett Favre must be seething as he sits on his tractor in Mississippi and wonders why Thompson went a third straight year without adding a sure-fire playmaker to the offense. Some think Favre should sue for non-support. Some think he should have called Thompson and retired on the spot. But with all due respect to Favre, the greatest player in Packers history, it doesn't really matter what he thinks. It's not Thompson's job to make sure Favre is happy with every decision. It is, however, his job to maximize Favre's ability in the final years of his career.
Thompson fell down on the job again last weekend, but not because he didn't placate Favre. It was because he didn't give Favre the means to be fully productive at his age and diminished skill level. That affects the entire team, not just Favre. Despite his timid approach to building a team, Thompson has done some good things in Green Bay. With a whopping 34 draft picks in three years, he has fortified a roster depleted by Mike Sherman's mismanagement of the draft. The one thing Thompson has failed to do, however, is add game-breakers to a sluggish offense. Indeed, it has become increasingly apparent that Thompson is reading out of a 10-year-old playbook, one written by his mentor, former general manager Ron Wolf.
During the Packers' Super Bowl years, Wolf spent his money elsewhere and handed Favre mid-round draft picks at the skill positions. In 1996 and '97, Edgar Bennett (fourth round) and Dorsey Levens (fifth) were the halfbacks, Robert Brooks (third) and Antonio Freeman (third) were the wide receivers and Mark Chmura (sixth) was the tight end. All of those players were good, but none was truly special. The Packers got away with it because Favre was such a dominant playmaker himself. At 37, Favre simply isn't the playmaker he once was. Yet, Thompson is still trying to surround him with good but not great skill players. He doesn't seem to understand that Favre needs more help than he once did.
By refusing Saturday to trade for Cleveland's first-round pick in 2008, Thompson showed he wants to win now. That's why it's curious that he didn't give Favre more help. If Favre is going to be the quarterback, why not give him the weapons he needs at this point in his career? Wolf has said often that his biggest regret is not putting enough weapons around Favre during his prime. Thompson is doing the same thing at a time when Favre needs them more than ever.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/index.php?ntid=131568&ntpid=3

Oates: Offense passed over again TOM OATES

At least we know who's not running the draft for the Green Bay Packers. It's not quarterback Brett Favre, that's for sure. Nor is it the suddenly vocal Packers fans. If it was, the Packers would have spent their first-round pick in Saturday's NFL draft on a wide receiver or a tight end or some other player who could provide a booster shot for an offense that has been woefully short of playmakers for the past two seasons. But if Packers general manager Ted Thompson had any inclination to throw Favre a bone in the final years of his storied career, it hasn't been evident on draft day. For the third time in three years, Thompson ignored the needs of the team's offense and the wishes of its fans with his first-round pick, which he used on oft-injured Tennessee defensive tackle Justin Harrell.
In doing so, Thompson passed on several pass-catchers - tight end Greg Olsen of Miami (Fla.) and wide receivers Robert Meachem of Tennessee and Dwayne Bowe of LSU - who might have given the anemic offense an immediate lift. Drafting 16th overall, Thompson also bypassed several chances to trade down and accumulate picks even though he probably could have dropped five to 10 spots and still landed Harrell, considered by Thompson and others a top-10 talent were it not for his long injury history. Trading down and losing Harrell wasn't a risk Thompson was willing to take, even if it meant he was booed by offense-hungry fans gathered in the Lambeau Field atrium. Thompson wanted Harrell even though defensive tackle ranked sixth or seventh on a list of team needs for the 2007 season. "We don't draft based on needs," he said. "I know that's boring, and I hate to be repetitive, but we don't think that's the best policy. We think, really and truly, that the more good football players - regardless of position - that you can add to your team, the better off you are as an organization and as a team."
It's hard to argue with that strategy in today's NFL, where building through the draft is the accepted road to success. And any team would love an immovable, run-stuffing tackle, something the Packers' otherwise well-stocked defensive line lacks. However, Thompson has leaned too far toward the best-available-player philosophy and not paid enough attention to need. Since he took over the Packers' draft, his first-round picks have been a quarterback of the future (Aaron Rodgers), a linebacker (A.J. Hawk) and now Harrell. His only real big-ticket acquisitions in free agency have been defensive players - cornerback Charles Woodson and defensive tackle Ryan Pickett last year.
Unless Thompson is able to complete a much-rumored trade with Oakland for wide receiver Randy Moss, there will be almost no chance to add an impact player on offense in what might be Favre's final season. The Packers picked Nebraska halfback Brandon Jackson late in the second round, but how much immediate help can he provide when he couldn't even start until the final nine games of his career? Third-round wide receiver James Jones of San Jose State is regarded as a developmental pick. Green Bay's failure to add firepower to an already punchless offense that has lost halfback Ahman Green to free agency could spell trouble in the fall - no matter how good the defense is. Thompson admits people might get the impression he's neglecting the offense, but he claims he was just following his draft board with the selection of Harrell. "We felt like he was the best value on the board," Thompson said. "We felt like anytime you have a chance to get a quality defensive lineman of his ability, you have to think about taking him."
Thompson could have made the case that he needed to improve the defense because the rest of the teams in the NFC North added a potential playmaker in the first round Saturday, but he didn't. Detroit took wide receiver Calvin Johnson of Georgia Tech with the second pick, Minnesota took halfback Adrian Peterson of Oklahoma with the seventh pick and Chicago took Olsen with the 31st pick. Despite that, the Packers stuck to their long-range plan by picking Harrell. "He's a guy that we really coveted at 16," Packers coach Mike McCarthy said. "I've said it over and over again, 'We're going to build this football team strong with the offensive and defensive lines.' We've added another excellent football player, excellent prospect to that defensive line group. You just cannot have enough big guys." The defense had better be good because, at the rate the Packers are going, the offense won't be.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=602432

It's catch-as-catch-can for team's wide receivers Big group battles for precious roster spots By RICHARD PUFALL

There is a traffic jam on Lombardi Avenue. The wide receivers are backed up, bumper to bumper as far as the eye can see. Right now, there are 11 wide receivers on the roster of the Green Bay Packers. That number could grow to 12 if the Packers add Keyshawn Johnson, who was recently cut by the Carolina Panthers. There could be 13 men fighting for what looks like five roster spots when - or if - Koren Robinson comes back. Robinson, suspended for one year for violation of the National Football League's substance abuse policy, can apply for reinstatement on Sept. 18. Let's complete the roll call: Donald Driver. Greg Jennings. Ruvell Martin. Carlyle Holiday. Chris Francies. Robert Ferguson. Shaun Bodiford. Calvin Russell. Carlton Brewster. Then there are 2007 draft picks, James Jones (third round) and David Clowney (fifth).
"I think you know what we have," said wide receivers coach Jimmy Robinson. "You're going to see Donald be Donald, which to me is a pretty darn good player, a Pro Bowl player. "I think you're going to see a Greg Jennings, who is a healthy Greg Jennings and if you think back to last year, pretty decent first half and not as good second half, I think primarily, because of the ankle (injury)." It appears the Packers have some quality woven into the quantity that is their receiving corps.
And it all starts with Driver: Donald Driver: Green Bay's No. 1 wide receiver is perhaps the most underrated player at his position in the game. He started all 16 games in 2006, was selected to his second Pro Bowl and turned in the best season of his eight-year career with 92 receptions for 1,295 yards and eight touchdowns. Yes, he has a job.
Greg Jennings: The Green Bay coaches love this guy and they should. Jennings has great ability matched by a terrific attitude and work ethic. Only injuries can hold him back. Jennings started 2006 on a 1,000-yard pace, but an ankle injury in Miami slowed him down the stretch. Still, Jennings caught 45 passes for 632 yards and three touchdowns. He was named to the NFL's all-rookie team. And there's no reason to believe he won't be even more productive in his second season. "I definitely think my ability to run after the catch is a strength," Jennings said. Said Robinson: "He is polished at an early age. "Driver and Jennings appear to be locked in as starters, which means 11 other receivers could be competing for three jobs.
Ruvell Martin: He earned respect and a chance for more in 2007. Martin, at 6-foot-4, has perfect size for the West Coast offense. He played in 13 games in 2006, caught 21 passes for 358 yards and a 17-yard average. He left a lasting impression in Green Bay's season finale, a 26-7 victory over the Bears in Chicago. On New Year's Eve at Soldier Field Martin caught seven passes for 118 yards. He will be difficult to cut.
Robert Ferguson: His picture is next to the word "disappointing" in the dictionary. In six seasons with the Packers, Ferguson just hasn't gotten it done. A tough special-teams player, but he can't stay healthy. He played in just four games last season with one start, catching a paltry five passes for 31 yards before going on injured reserve with a damaged foot. He was not drafted by Thompson and that can only hurt him. Ferguson changed his uniform number from 89 to 87 and it could change one more time - to unlisted.
Carlyle Holiday: He left a positive impression in just four games with the Packers last season, catching nine passes for 126 yards (14-yard average). He had a career-high five catches for 87 yards in the finale at Chicago, making him worth a long look.
Chris Francies: He will have a tough time making this team without an epidemic of injuries. He played in just two games in 2006, with two receptions for 16 yards.
Shaun Bodiford: He played in just six games last season, including three with Detroit and did not catch a pass. He went on injured reserve on Nov. 15 with a shin injury. Bodiford is not likely to find full-time employment with Green Bay.
Calvin Russell & Carlton Brewster: Neither played in a game with the Packers in 2006 and that isn't likely to change in '07.
James Jones: Thompson likes his draft picks and there is a lot to like about Jones, a big, strong and physical receiver from San Jose State, who was selected in the third round. "I want competition," Jones said, when asked about the possibility of Johnson joining the race. "I want the Packers to be the best team that we can be. "I think that's everyone's goal that's here, to make the roster and to be a starter. This is a dream come true. So I'm going to work real hard to try and become a starter." Jones brings a hunger to succeed that few others can understand. From the time he was 8 until he was 12 he lived in homeless shelters in San Jose with his mother and sister. "We went from shelter to shelter," Jones said. "Bunch of schools . . . every shelter we moved to I moved to a different school. So I went to about four or five elementary schools." Jones went to one middle school, moved in with his grandmother until his mom was able to secure a home for the family, then he went to one high school. "Nobody wants to do it, but I was with my mom and I believed in my mom and believing in God I knew everything would work out. You just got to keep faith. Sometimes you go through the day and you don't eat. . . . Sometimes you barely can sleep. "Everybody don't go through it, but I was glad I went through it. It made me a better person."
David Clowney: If he makes the team, Clowney will be the fastest player on the roster. Clowney, who was drafted in the fifth round out of Virginia Tech, ran a 4.29 40-yard dash on an indoor rubber track during campus agility tests, then ran a 4.35 on an outdoor grass field. "I plan to be here," Clowney said. "I plan to stay. The last Virginia Tech wide receiver here did an awesome job - Antonio Freeman. And I expect to do the same thing." Clowney said the first thing he thought of when he got the call from the Packers was Brett Favre. "Being able to catch a ball from a Hall of Fame quarterback, a legend, is a blessing," Clowney said. "It's great and I plan to do a lot with it." Clowney has speed and quickness, but looks smaller than his listed dimensions for 6-0½ and a 188 pounds. He said he welcomes the competition, no matter the size or name. "We've got Donald Driver and of course Jennings," he said "They're both great wide receivers. I've seen what both of them can do and they're both outstanding. . . . I welcome any competition. That's what makes you a better receiver, it helps your drive. . . . I don't care if it's Keyshawn or Donald Driver . . . me and James, we know each other well from the combine and we're going to make each other better." And Clowney has a message for Green Bay's coaches and fans who have been looking for a deep threat. "They found him," he said. "I plan on being that deep threat. I plan on staying."
Keyshawn Johnson: Don't count your wide receivers before they're signed. The Packers must decide if Johnson is worth pursing and will be a good fit in Green Bay. Johnson turns 35 in June, which is elderly in the NFL at his position. But it's hard to overlook his numbers. In his one season with Carolina, Johnson caught 70 passes for 815 yards, an 11.6-yard average and four touchdowns. For his career he has 10,571 yards and 64 touchdowns. Johnson, a possession receiver for his entire career, could help the Packers solve their problems in the red zone. But Green Bay might see Johnson as nothing more than an older version of Ruvell Martin, who turns 25 in August. "Well, I think anytime you can upgrade your football team, whether it's with a veteran or with a younger player, that's something you have to look at," head coach Mike McCarthy said. "Obviously, Keyshawn has been very effective, more than effective, he's been very productive in the National Football League, so I think you have to look at all those situations, and that's what we do."
Koren Robinson: He has been sort of the forgotten man. Robinson is serving a one-year suspension and is not allowed to set foot on Packer property or use team facilities. When he was released last year by Minnesota, many in the Twin Cities believed that the Vikings had lost their best wide receiver. Before his suspension Robinson caught seven passes with the Packers for 89 yards and a 12.7 average in four games. At 27, Robinson is young enough to return as a productive receiver, if he can defeat his personal demons. In 2002 with Seattle he caught 78 passes for 1,240 and a 15.9 average.
"The one thing about our group, if you look at them, youth is a positive, particularly guys that have been here," McCarthy said Friday after the first day of Green Bay's rookie orientation camp. "I told the rookies today, the veterans have been here since March 19 getting after it. You look at Calvin Russell, he's put on probably 8 to 10 pounds of lean muscle mass. You're just seeing guys develop. Clowney and Jones I think both bring a dimension to our football team that you like. Clowney can really run. You can see his burst and his fast twitch out here today. You just never have enough good skill players." True. But in September, 13 wide receivers will be about eight too many.

packinpatland
05-10-2007, 06:48 AM
These articles sure help 'shore up' my position that TT hasn't done much to help Favre.

Bretsky
05-10-2007, 07:38 AM
he's added bodies

wist43
05-10-2007, 08:14 AM
Ya know, it's really strange how the Packers do, in fact, give short shrift to skill position players on offense.

They've invested two 1st round picks on that side of the ball at the skill positions - Bubba Franks (who's average at best), and Javon Walker (who TT, of course, couldn't wait to run out of town.).

As I've said many times, they've all but wasted the career of a HOF QB. The SB in '96 was awesome, but we should have won more than just the one.

RashanGary
05-10-2007, 08:15 AM
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Driver and Jennings are better than many #1 and #2 WR's around the league. Jackson and Morency are big unknowns but there is nothing to say these guys can't be good, see Maurice Jones Drew.

I believe the Packers biggest problem was weakness up front. I think they stand a big chance of improving in that area and when they do, Favre will have more targets to throw to and longer time to do it. Also, the RB's will have more holes to run through, esspecially in the redzone.

TopHat
05-10-2007, 03:57 PM
UPDATED.

8-)

BallHawk
05-10-2007, 04:00 PM
When is enough playmakers enough?

Badgepack
05-10-2007, 04:06 PM
The players we have need to step up and perform well.
It's a team thing, altough stud players would be nice.

mraynrand
05-10-2007, 04:28 PM
Ya know, it's really strange how the Packers do, in fact, give short shrift to skill position players on offense.

They've invested two 1st round picks on that side of the ball at the skill positions - Bubba Franks (who's average at best), and Javon Walker (who TT, of course, couldn't wait to run out of town.).

As I've said many times, they've all but wasted the career of a HOF QB. The SB in '96 was awesome, but we should have won more than just the one.


In 2004, Favre was nearly as prolific as in 1997, yet the team was nowhere as good. You could argue that Wolf (and Sherman to a degree) was successful in upgrading the offense with the 2000 draft, Green and Sherman with Walker, bu Wolf was a disaster in later drafts upgrading the defense - Almost all of Wolf's D-line picks, ecept KGB, were total disasters. Defense (2003?, 2004), injury (2002), and Favre himself (every year poor draft position) cost the Packers another Superbowl.

the_idle_threat
05-10-2007, 04:38 PM
Everybody seems to think we need to go out and get established playmakers, but guess what ... where are they gonna come from? Thin air? Other people's garbage (a.k.a. free agency)? At this point, you have to find them on your roster.

We've got a whole bunch of young guys ... let's give 'em a chance to step up. Every established playmaker in the league was once a young guy looking for a chance. It's time to give our young guys that chance. They won't all step up, but surely a few of them will. Those are the guys that will make the team.

packinpatland
05-10-2007, 04:52 PM
I know this sounds naive, but why does the NFL pay rookies so much?
What's the incentive when you've been given millions?

I'd almost rather all rookies get paid the bare minimum, and have to work for their 'rewards'.

the_idle_threat
05-10-2007, 04:57 PM
My guess would be collective bargaining.

Bretsky
05-10-2007, 05:34 PM
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Driver and Jennings are better than many #1 and #2 WR's around the league. Jackson and Morency are big unknowns but there is nothing to say these guys can't be good, see Maurice Jones Drew.

I believe the Packers biggest problem was weakness up front. I think they stand a big chance of improving in that area and when they do, Favre will have more targets to throw to and longer time to do it. Also, the RB's will have more holes to run through, esspecially in the redzone.


So we have one weapon, one potental one, and a bunch of unprovens.

I agree with the writers as well as most of the NFL TV commentators.

Unless you are severely biased it's hard to even make a case that Driver, Jennings and the rest are enough playmakers.

I see over 66% agree in a Packer homer site.

If you'd ask non Packer football experts I'd bet the percentages would be closer to 90%

Bretsky
05-10-2007, 05:37 PM
Everybody seems to think we need to go out and get established playmakers, but guess what ... where are they gonna come from? Thin air? Other people's garbage (a.k.a. free agency)? At this point, you have to find them on your roster.

We've got a whole bunch of young guys ... let's give 'em a chance to step up. Every established playmaker in the league was once a young guy looking for a chance. It's time to give our young guys that chance. They won't all step up, but surely a few of them will. Those are the guys that will make the team.


If you don't draft them high it's an option to trade for them.

It's not like playmakers haven't been there for the taking

Deon Branch, Darrell Jackson, Randy Moss, Michael Turner....etc

I'm not arguing to get em all but there are options year after year to be had

4and12to12and4
05-10-2007, 07:12 PM
I am one of few here that thinks that our receiving core will be more than adequate. The only area we need improvement is tight end. The key to a successful offense this season will be our offensive lines continuing improvement. I think our young receivers will step up and make it difficult to figure out who to cut this year. I saw much improvement with Holiday and Ruvell. I am very high on Holiday. I think he is gonna turn into a probowl receiver. He has good speed, great hands, and good quickness. I see him blossoming this year. I think our problem is going to be having to cut a couple receivers that have the skills to make the team. Unlike most here, I think we have a very good crew of receivers that will be fighting hard to win positions. And if KRob can play mid-season, he will be another great weapon. He also has probowl potential with Brett throwing to him. I know most will disagree, but if o-line can handle their responsibilities and our running game is a threat, we will be fine in the passing game.

Bretsky
05-10-2007, 08:18 PM
Pro Bowl ? Wow. I hope you are right; he showed flashes, but he was a guy who was cut by a NFL squad and a late season addition at a time when not many teams wanted the guy.

Our only weakness is TE ?

You'd make it sound like we have a top 5 offense.

We went from Ahman Green to a rookie with limited experience. I like Jackson and wish him the best, but gosh, there's a ton of blind faith going on here.

I agree it will be hard to figure out who to cut; we might have about five #4-#5 calibur WR's. Hopefully one of the five can be an adequate #3.

I completely agree on KROB; it's too bad we don't have him the whole season because he might be able to be the #3 with the training camp.

RashanGary
05-10-2007, 08:56 PM
So we have one weapon, one potental one, and a bunch of unprovens.

I agree with the writers as well as most of the NFL TV commentators.

Unless you are severely biased it's hard to even make a case that Driver, Jennings and the rest are enough playmakers.

I see over 66% agree in a Packer homer site.

If you'd ask non Packer football experts I'd bet the percentages would be closer to 90%


I don't think I'm biased. I do think highly of Driver and Jennings. I think the Oline is going to be a lot better. Favre is Favre and I think our RB's stand a chance if the line is good.

The RB position is the only glaring hole and I'm not 100% sold that it is such a big hole depending on the growth of Morency and the addition of Jackson. If one of those guys turns out legit, I acctually think we have a pretty good offense. Well, there are 2 if's; the Oline and the RB but I think the Oline is likely to be good and the RB is 50/50.

Bretsky
05-10-2007, 09:10 PM
So we have one weapon, one potental one, and a bunch of unprovens.

I agree with the writers as well as most of the NFL TV commentators.

Unless you are severely biased it's hard to even make a case that Driver, Jennings and the rest are enough playmakers.

I see over 66% agree in a Packer homer site.

If you'd ask non Packer football experts I'd bet the percentages would be closer to 90%


I don't think I'm biased. I do think highly of Driver and Jennings. I think the Oline is going to be a lot better. Favre is Favre and I think our RB's stand a chance if the line is good.

The RB position is the only glaring hole and I'm not 100% sold that it is such a big hole depending on the growth of Morency and the addition of Jackson. If one of those guys turns out legit, I acctually think we have a pretty good offense. Well, there are 2 if's; the Oline and the RB but I think the Oline is likely to be good and the RB is 50/50.

Past history suggests a good chance for an injury at WR; I've always felt in today's NFL you need three starters. If Jennings or Driver gets hurt we have a glaring hole at WR.

If the OL and the RB's turn out fine I agree we'll be fine.

I do think you are biased behind the actions of TT; I also know that I have a bias against him.

I also think there is something to be said regarding giving credibility to those without an emotional attachment to Green Bay.

We criticize all the national press/writers/NFL experts on TV as know nothings too often.

Most of them see things w/o many of the biases we have.

SD GB fan
05-10-2007, 09:20 PM
i think we will score more than last year. but you can never get enough playmakers. more options is a good thing.

Green Bud Packer
05-10-2007, 09:28 PM
[I agree with the writers as well as most of the NFL TV commentators.



I also think there is something to be said regarding giving credibility to those without an emotional attachment to Green Bay.

We criticize all the national press/writers/NFL experts on TV as know nothings too often.

Most of them see things w/o many of the biases we have. funny how when we agree with the press they are right and when we don't they are know nothings. i'm excited about the upcoming season. we have enough playmakers to win 10 games. not all playmakers have to be on offense

RashanGary
05-10-2007, 09:30 PM
Sorry, b but I think they see things with much less familiarity in relation to us. I'm think I know more about the Packers than almost any national media member and I don't think that is smug.

We'll see how the season plays out. You might be right that the offense sucks. I don't really see it but I'm not going to sit here and say I'm certain that the offense is great either.

I'm willing to give TT hell if this team regresses or goes worse than 8-8 and I'm sure you're willing ot give him props if we go 9-7 and catch a wild card birth. It'll be a fun season. I might seem optimsitic to you, but I really think this team will be competetive with in the wildcard chase or even in the NFC north if Chicago has an injury or two.

MJZiggy
05-10-2007, 09:31 PM
A defense that scores points? When's the last time we had one of those?

Bretsky
05-10-2007, 09:33 PM
Sorry, b but I think they see things with much less familiarity in relation to us. I'm think I know more about the Packers than almost any national media member and I don't think that is smug.

We'll see how the season plays out. You might be right that the offense sucks. I don't really see it but I'm not going to sit here and say I'm certain that the offense is great either.

I'm willing to give TT hell if this team regresses or goes worse than 8-8 and I'm sure you're willing ot give him props if we go 9-7 and catch a wild card birth. It'll be a fun season. I might seem optimsitic to you, but I really think this team will be competetive with in the wildcard chase or even in the NFC north if Chicago has an injury or two.

Agree on all of this. Except I don't think the whole offense sucks; I'd just say they are below average.

TT made a last ditch effort to keep Ahman; the way this FA season shaped up I wish he'd have succeeded.


Cheers,
B

RashanGary
05-10-2007, 09:33 PM
A defense that scores points? When's the last time we had one of those?

Sometimes a team plays higher than the sum of it's parts. With the strong DL and the LB's we have behind them, I think our team stands a chance to get some big time play out of it's front 7.

esoxx
05-10-2007, 09:52 PM
I am very high on Holiday. I think he is gonna turn into a probowl receiver.

Or perhaps you are just very high. :P

the_idle_threat
05-11-2007, 03:06 AM
Everybody seems to think we need to go out and get established playmakers, but guess what ... where are they gonna come from? Thin air? Other people's garbage (a.k.a. free agency)? At this point, you have to find them on your roster.

We've got a whole bunch of young guys ... let's give 'em a chance to step up. Every established playmaker in the league was once a young guy looking for a chance. It's time to give our young guys that chance. They won't all step up, but surely a few of them will. Those are the guys that will make the team.


If you don't draft them high it's an option to trade for them.

It's not like playmakers haven't been there for the taking

Deon Branch, Darrell Jackson, Randy Moss, Michael Turner....etc

I'm not arguing to get em all but there are options year after year to be had

TT made a run for Moss. I was all for it if the price was right, but it didn't happen and it's time to stop crying over spilled milk. There are young guys on the team who have talent. Let's see what they can do.

Same goes for Turner. I think he is probably better right now than the guys we have, but on the other hand it seems like the rookie we got is well-suited to our scheme, and Morencey did ok last year. Let 'em split carries, and I think they'll be fine provided the line does its job. If the line fails, then I don't think Turner would do much better.

Jackson and Branch?

Jackson made some plays for Seattle last year and yet they set him on the curb; why did they do that? I don't claim to know, but I'm sure TT knows. Not only is it his job, but he drafted Jackson and is likely to know him better than most. Do you believe differently?

Branch took Jackson's place in Seattle, and really ... what did Branch do last year? Not much ... he was 28th in the NFC in receiving yards, and had 4 touchdowns. Whoopee. Funny thing is ... these numbers are just about his career average in both categories. New England really suckered Seattle for their 1st rounder on that trade. You wish they would have suckered us instead?

Going after yesterday's playmakers from other offenses is a crap shoot. The grass is not greener, my friend. We have some young guys who have spent time learning our offense. Maybe we should see if somebody steps up. Call me crazy, but I think somebody will.

Bretsky
05-11-2007, 07:35 AM
Everybody seems to think we need to go out and get established playmakers, but guess what ... where are they gonna come from? Thin air? Other people's garbage (a.k.a. free agency)? At this point, you have to find them on your roster.

We've got a whole bunch of young guys ... let's give 'em a chance to step up. Every established playmaker in the league was once a young guy looking for a chance. It's time to give our young guys that chance. They won't all step up, but surely a few of them will. Those are the guys that will make the team.


If you don't draft them high it's an option to trade for them.

It's not like playmakers haven't been there for the taking

Deon Branch, Darrell Jackson, Randy Moss, Michael Turner....etc

I'm not arguing to get em all but there are options year after year to be had

TT made a run for Moss. I was all for it if the price was right, but it didn't happen and it's time to stop crying over spilled milk. There are young guys on the team who have talent. Let's see what they can do.

Same goes for Turner. I think he is probably better right now than the guys we have, but on the other hand it seems like the rookie we got is well-suited to our scheme, and Morencey did ok last year. Let 'em split carries, and I think they'll be fine provided the line does its job. If the line fails, then I don't think Turner would do much better.

Jackson and Branch?

Jackson made some plays for Seattle last year and yet they set him on the curb; why did they do that? I don't claim to know, but I'm sure TT knows. Not only is it his job, but he drafted Jackson and is likely to know him better than most. Do you believe differently?

Branch took Jackson's place in Seattle, and really ... what did Branch do last year? Not much ... he was 28th in the NFC in receiving yards, and had 4 touchdowns. Whoopee. Funny thing is ... these numbers are just about his career average in both categories. New England really suckered Seattle for their 1st rounder on that trade. You wish they would have suckered us instead?

Going after yesterday's playmakers from other offenses is a crap shoot. The grass is not greener, my friend. We have some young guys who have spent time learning our offense. Maybe we should see if somebody steps up. Call me crazy, but I think somebody will.


I'm fine with most of your reasoning, although Jackson and Branch are better than you give them credit for. Jackson is hands down one of our top 3 WR's and Branch is better than Jackson, which is part of the reason he was replaced.

But I don't buy for a second the argument of "where" were they to be found.

There are playmakers for the taking if you have a GM willing to make it happen. Maybe he should have, maybe not. But they are there.

Now it's time to see if any of these bodies turn out to be players.

Bring on 2010 :lol:

woodbuck27
05-11-2007, 09:35 AM
Sorry, b but I think they see things with much less familiarity in relation to us. I'm think I know more about the Packers than almost any national media member and I don't think that is smug.

We'll see how the season plays out. You might be right that the offense sucks. I don't really see it but I'm not going to sit here and say I'm certain that the offense is great either.

I'm willing to give TT hell if this team regresses or goes worse than 8-8 and I'm sure you're willing ot give him props if we go 9-7 and catch a wild card birth. It'll be a fun season. I might seem optimsitic to you, but I really think this team will be competetive with in the wildcard chase or even in the NFC north if Chicago has an injury or two.

''I'm willing to give TT hell if this team regresses or goes worse than 8-8 . . .''

You may as well start writing and editing your criticle post of TT now Justin Harrell.

If we go 8-8 I will be extremely surprized. I'm hoping for a win. Then two wins and after that it's all gravy from where I see the Packers.

There will be a ton of pressure on Mike Mccarthy and his coaching staff to prepare our team just to be competitive.

The off season set us up for McCarthy's failure in 2007 not his success. Ted Thompson for whatever reason did next to nothing to help us advance this season, and our schedule isn't as easy as last season. We play 9 games Vs. teams rated above us by one man's power ranking.To win all games or seven from the teams ranked below us we have to have 4 wins Vs. the Lions and Vikings.We have to beat 'the Chiefs' on the road.

Three loss's Vs those teams and we have to win 5 of 9 Vs the upper tier teams.I don't see that happening. Certainly not now and it's early.

The pressure on our HC and his staff is awesome. MM seems to be a confident young HC and he certainly puts in alot of hard work.Will he get it done?

We all hope he will of course but from my point of seeing this season I'm at present not optimistic.

GO PACKERS !

MJZiggy
05-11-2007, 11:24 AM
Goodness, Woodbuck!!! Have a valium and wash it down with a quart of kool-aid. It's the spring, time of renewal!!! Anything can happen. I'm standing by my 10-6 prediction. I say a couple of these kids step up and we surprise some people (evidently those people include you) If TT is known for doing one thing well, it's scouting talent. I think his scouting pays off this year.

4and12to12and4
05-11-2007, 05:17 PM
Pro Bowl ? Wow. I hope you are right; he showed flashes, but he was a guy who was cut by a NFL squad and a late season addition at a time when not many teams wanted the guy.

Our only weakness is TE ?

You'd make it sound like we have a top 5 offense.

We went from Ahman Green to a rookie with limited experience. I like Jackson and wish him the best, but gosh, there's a ton of blind faith going on here.

I agree it will be hard to figure out who to cut; we might have about five #4-#5 calibur WR's. Hopefully one of the five can be an adequate #3.

I completely agree on KROB; it's too bad we don't have him the whole season because he might be able to be the #3 with the training camp.

Well, the Colts won the Superbowl with a rookie RB, so, how big of a deal is it really? I'm telling you, it's about the lines, boys and girls. If Brett has time, and holes open up, we will score often.

the_idle_threat
05-12-2007, 07:47 AM
I'm fine with most of your reasoning, although Jackson and Branch are better than you give them credit for. Jackson is hands down one of our top 3 WR's and Branch is better than Jackson, which is part of the reason he was replaced.


Funny thing is, I agree that Jackson is a good receiver. When you look at his history (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187568), you can see he's been very productive for a number of years. I would agree---based upon what I can tell---that he'd be one of our 3 best receivers hands down. But apparently TT does not think so. I suspect he knows something that you and I don't---either about Jackson, or about guys we have on the roster.

I disagree that Branch is better than Jackson. Look at his career production (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302177). IMO, Branch is almost as big a fraud as Robert Ferguson. Obviously Branch has done more in his career than Fergie, but he's also hyped a whole lot more. Yet---despite his talent and opportunities as the go-to guy in New England and Seattle---Branch has never had a 1000 yard season and his single-season career high is 5 touchdowns.

It boggles my mind that Seattle gave up a 1st round pick for an undersized, injury-prone guy that has never realized his potential, and then accepted only a 4th-round pick for a guy who is bigger, a lot more productive, and no less injury prone.

RashanGary
05-12-2007, 09:54 AM
Well, the Colts won the Superbowl with a rookie RB, so, how big of a deal is it really? I'm telling you, it's about the lines, boys and girls. If Brett has time, and holes open up, we will score often.

I agree.

RashanGary
05-12-2007, 09:55 AM
Goodness, Woodbuck!!! Have a valium and wash it down with a quart of kool-aid. It's the spring, time of renewal!!! Anything can happen. I'm standing by my 10-6 prediction. I say a couple of these kids step up and we surprise some people (evidently those people include you) If TT is known for doing one thing well, it's scouting talent. I think his scouting pays off this year.

I'll go 9-7 but it's only because you always lose one or two more games than you should with youth (see San Diego last year.)

Bretsky
05-12-2007, 10:10 AM
Pro Bowl ? Wow. I hope you are right; he showed flashes, but he was a guy who was cut by a NFL squad and a late season addition at a time when not many teams wanted the guy.

Our only weakness is TE ?

You'd make it sound like we have a top 5 offense.

We went from Ahman Green to a rookie with limited experience. I like Jackson and wish him the best, but gosh, there's a ton of blind faith going on here.

I agree it will be hard to figure out who to cut; we might have about five #4-#5 calibur WR's. Hopefully one of the five can be an adequate #3.

I completely agree on KROB; it's too bad we don't have him the whole season because he might be able to be the #3 with the training camp.

Well, the Colts won the Superbowl with a rookie RB, so, how big of a deal is it really? I'm telling you, it's about the lines, boys and girls. If Brett has time, and holes open up, we will score often.


Not a fair comparison at all.

The Colts also had

the best QB or next best in the NFL
One of the top if not the top 3 WR combo's in the NFL in Harrison, Wayne, and Stokely. Two Pro Bowl WR's are running routes for the best QB.

An outstanding pass receiving TE in Dallas Clark....one of the top TE's in the game receiving wise.

and a solid OL.

If we had that talent we'd do quite well even with our young OL.

Bretsky
05-12-2007, 10:12 AM
I'm fine with most of your reasoning, although Jackson and Branch are better than you give them credit for. Jackson is hands down one of our top 3 WR's and Branch is better than Jackson, which is part of the reason he was replaced.


Funny thing is, I agree that Jackson is a good receiver. When you look at his history (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187568), you can see he's been very productive for a number of years. I would agree---based upon what I can tell---that he'd be one of our 3 best receivers hands down. But apparently TT does not think so. I suspect he knows something that you and I don't---either about Jackson, or about guys we have on the roster.

I disagree that Branch is better than Jackson. Look at his career production (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302177). IMO, Branch is almost as big a fraud as Robert Ferguson. Obviously Branch has done more in his career than Fergie, but he's also hyped a whole lot more. Yet---despite his talent and opportunities as the go-to guy in New England and Seattle---Branch has never had a 1000 yard season and his single-season career high is 5 touchdowns.

It boggles my mind that Seattle gave up a 1st round pick for an undersized, injury-prone guy that has never realized his potential, and then accepted only a 4th-round pick for a guy who is bigger, a lot more productive, and no less injury prone.

Branch is young; Jackson is not.

Apples to apples I'd take Branch; but if I had to give up a first versus a fourth I agree Jackson is the better choice.

I'm not sure TT had any great insider information; he's just unwilling to part with current or future draft picks for players to win now. Agree or not, that is the concept he's following.

The Leaper
05-12-2007, 11:47 AM
Well, the Colts won the Superbowl with a rookie RB, so, how big of a deal is it really? I'm telling you, it's about the lines, boys and girls. If Brett has time, and holes open up, we will score often.

This is naive.

The Colts already had a HOF QB in his prime, a HOF WR just past his prime but still extremely dangerous, and numerous other experienced players on offense who are above average in skill.

Sure...they are able to plug in a rookie RB and be successful. That hardly means Green Bay can...with three inexperienced OL players, below average TEs, a HOF QB who isn't what he used to be.

Thompson has had numerous opportunities to upgrade the talent at the skill positions on offense. He hasn't taken advantage of one of them. I find that to be disturbing...especially as we sit on $9M in cap space and have nothing to spend it on.

FritzDontBlitz
05-12-2007, 12:24 PM
Well, the Colts won the Superbowl with a rookie RB, so, how big of a deal is it really? I'm telling you, it's about the lines, boys and girls. If Brett has time, and holes open up, we will score often.

This is naive.

The Colts already had a HOF QB in his prime, a HOF WR just past his prime but still extremely dangerous, and numerous other experienced players on offense who are above average in skill.

Sure...they are able to plug in a rookie RB and be successful. That hardly means Green Bay can...with three inexperienced OL players, below average TEs, a HOF QB who isn't what he used to be.

Thompson has had numerous opportunities to upgrade the talent at the skill positions on offense. He hasn't taken advantage of one of them. I find that to be disturbing...especially as we sit on $9M in cap space and have nothing to spend it on.

well said, leaper. where will the veteran leadership come from on offense? 7 of the 11 projected starters on offense have 3 years experience OR LESS in the league. i hope tt has his eye on a few midlevel vets to add to the roster after june 1st; if he doesn't, then prepare for another season of watching the offense struggle to find its stride through the first 8 games. unless our defense becomes a scoring threat similar to the bears defense we will be looking at 4-4 or worse at midseason.

can you say "on the job training?" i knew that you could, neighbor... :x

TopHat
05-12-2007, 11:33 PM
http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070512/PKR01/70512050/1989

Favre: Packers wouldn't pay Moss

Veteran quarterback Brett Favre isn’t happy that the Green Bay Packers didn’t trade for Oakland receiver Randy Moss, and he bluntly said so on Saturday.

“It is disappointing,” Favre told Al Jones of the Biloxi (Miss.) Sun Herald during his annual celebrity golf tournament in Tunica, Miss. “It was a done deal and the stories of how we lost him because he didn’t want to restructure his contract were not true. “He was going to wipe his contract clean and sign for $3 million guaranteed, plus a fourth-round draft pick. That would have been a steal. But we were not willing to guarantee part of that $3 million. I even had (agent) Bus (Cook) call up there and tell them I would give up part of my salary to guarantee that part of the money. Apparently that wasn’t enough, either.”

Favre conceded he knew his comments would raise eyebrows. “This is a first-class organization that wants to win. I want to win now,” he told Jones. “I just want to win; maybe I see things the wrong way. I don’t want to ruffle any feathers and I want people to respect me. Sometimes I think it’s hard for them to let Brett go. They might think that we pay him a lot of money, but he still gives us the best chance to win. I’ve never been told that, but there are times when I wonder if I’m the odd man out here and they just don’t know how to tell me."

Favre, 37, knows time in running out on his NFL career. “Our offense struggled last season. If it were not for our defense, we would not have won eight games. Right now, it’s hard to be optimistic," he told Jones. "I’m not getting any younger and I think everyone knows that. I don’t have five years to rebuild. No one in Green Bay is saying rebuild, but it’s hard to look at where we are going and say, ‘How can they not be rebuilding?"

“I don’t know if I’ve lost faith, and I think everyone in the organization wants to win. I just don’t know if it includes me. If it’s going to be five years from now, I’m not going to be here. This is 17 years for me and I want to win.”

TopHat
05-13-2007, 12:03 AM
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/index.php?ntid=134018&ntpid=2\

Packers: Favre sounds off on missing Moss

Brett Favre is convinced the Green Bay Packers could have had controversial wide receiver Randy Moss, and while Favre chose his words somewhat carefully Saturday, the quarterback sounded more than a little unhappy with the club for not making it happen. Moss was traded from the Oakland Raiders to the New England Patriots in exchange for a fourth-round pick April 29, the second day of the NFL draft. The Packers also talked extensively with the Raiders - and with Moss' agent about a restructured contract - but general manager Ted Thompson was unwilling to part with more than a fifth-round pick.
Speaking at his annual charity golf tournament in Tunica, Miss., Favre told WMC-TV, the NBC affiliate in Memphis, Tenn., the Packers could have had Moss for less than the one-year, $3 million deal he signed with the Patriots. Moss can make $2 million more in incentives. When asked by the reporter if he thought it was a good move by the Packers not to trade for Moss, Favre replied, "No." Then Favre, who reportedly tried to recruit Moss to Green Bay during the drawn-out trade talks that began in February at the NFL scouting combine, added:
"I think we could have signed Randy Moss, (and) I know what we could have signed him for. We could have gotten him for less money than New England did. He wanted to play in Green Bay for the amount of money we could have paid him. "It is disappointing. It was a done deal and the stories of how we lost him because he didn't want to restructure his contract were not true. "He was going to wipe his contract clean and sign for $3 million guaranteed, plus a fourth-round draft pick. That would have been a steal. But we were not willing to guarantee part of that $3 million. I even had (agent) Bus (Cook) call up there and tell them I would give up part of my salary to guarantee that part of the money. Apparently that wasn't enough, either.
"You throw Randy Moss, you throw Donald Driver and you throw Greg Jennings on the field at the same time, and go (with a) three-wide receiver set, I think it's pretty intimidating. "We lost out on that, and it's a shame because I know we could have had him."
Packers pro personnel director Reggie McKenzie said the day after the draft reports that Moss chose the Patriots over the Packers were inaccurate, and that it was Raiders owner Al Davis' decision to send Moss to the Patriots. Moss had career lows in receptions (42), yards (553) and touchdowns (three) last season for the 2-14 Raiders last season. "I just want to win; maybe I see things the wrong way," Favre said. "This is a first-class organization that wants to win. I want to win now. "Our offense struggled last season. If it were not for our defense, we would not have won eight games. Right now, it's hard to be optimistic. I'm not getting any younger and I think everyone knows that. I don't have five years to rebuild. No one in Green Bay is saying rebuild but it's hard to look at where we are going and say, 'How can they not be rebuilding?' "It was well worth the risk."

mmmdk
05-13-2007, 02:13 AM
i think we will score more than last year. but you can never get enough playmakers. more options is a good thing.

I think Packers offense will struggle a lot 'cos the offense will get "old" pretty fast. The rest of the NFL do watch film and it should be no major task to break down the Packer 2007 offense. The real playmakers of the NFL are the ones you cannot game plan against and expect to be effective. System offenses needs an awesome defense to keep opponents down. Packers might have a defense on the rise and that's what you need to bank on; not offense.

TopHat
05-13-2007, 05:27 AM
http://packers.aolsportsblog.com/

Brett Favre Says Randy Moss 'Wanted to Play in Green Bay'

Green Bay quarterback Brett Favre expressed disappointment Saturday that the Packers missed out on acquiring Randy Moss, instead letting the Patriots get him in a trade with the Raiders -- even though Favre says Moss wanted to play for the Packers. "I know what we could have signed him for," Favre told Memphis television station WMC-TV at his annual charity golf tournament Saturday in Tunica, Miss. "We could have gotten him for less money than New England did. He wanted to play in Green Bay for the amount of money we could have paid him. It (was) well worth the risk." Favre added that he thinks Moss would have been a great addition to the Packers. It was the first time Favre has acknowledged publicly what many observers suspected, which is that he was strongly in favor of acquiring Moss to give the Packers one last chance at being a contender during Favre's career. When Favre decided to return for another season in Green Bay, he said he thought the team was on the right track, but his latest comments indicate that he questions the management's commitment to winning.

TopHat
05-13-2007, 10:25 AM
http://packers.scout.com/

Favre sounds off. Quarterback steamed that Packers failed to strike deal Moss.

Brett Favre confirmed Saturday that he indeed was lobbying for the Green Bay Packers to trade for veteran wide receiver Randy Moss. For months, there was widespread speculation that Favre was trying to encourage the Packers to trade for Moss. On Saturday, Favre voiced his disapproval of how Green Bay let Moss slip away to New England during the NFL draft weekend.
“It is disappointing,” Favre told Al Jones of the Biloxi (Miss.) Sun Herald during his annual celebrity golf tournament in Tunica, Miss. “It was a done deal and the stories of how we lost him because he didn’t want to restructure his contract were not true. “He was going to wipe his contract clean and sign for $3 million guaranteed, plus a fourth-round draft pick. That would have been a steal. But we were not willing to guarantee part of that $3 million. I even had (agent) Bus (Cook) call up there and tell them I would give up part of my salary to guarantee that part of the money. Apparently that wasn’t enough, either.” Favre, who is not expected to participate in next weekend’s mandatory minicamp because of off-season ankle surgery, said he knew his comments might irritate the Packers. “This is a first-class organization that wants to win. I want to win now,” he told Jones. “I just want to win...."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

http://packers.scout.com/

Offense? What offense?

PackerReport.com's Doug Ritchay explains why the Green Bay Packers will struggle to score points this season after missing the boat early in the NFL draft to add firepower for Brett Favre.

TopHat
05-13-2007, 11:11 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6805790?MSNHPHMA

TOP HAT: Yesterday and today, sports site, the latest news dealing with the reactions and the story behind of what happend last week leading to Favre's public comments yesterday.

Favre asked to be traded

The man who may have the biggest name in Green Bay sports history has asked to be traded. Several Packers and league sources have told FOXSports.com that Brett Favre has requested a trade. Several Packers and league sources have told FOXSports.com that Brett Favre's agent Bus Cook phoned Green Bay's general manager Ted Thompson within two to three days of the draft and asked for a trade. The sources said that Cook railed off how his client was fed up with the organization and wanted out. The shocking request appeared directly related to the team's inability to trade for WR Randy Moss. The news was then relayed to head coach Mike McCarthy, who immediately phoned the Super Bowl winning quarterback to squash his anger. However, the quarterback ignored all his calls for a week, perhaps showing the team how upset he was this time.
Finally, in the middle of this past week the two finally connected. Sources close to the situation said Favre asked McCarthy if he was aware that Cook asked for a trade but McCarthy immediately insisted that would not happen. McCarthy told others inside the organization it appeared the team's head coach had cooled Favre's anger and by the end of the conversation admitted he didn't want to go elsewhere. However, at the same time he has told friends on other teams as well how frustrated he is with the organization's inability to land the former Pro Bowl wideout and that he, in fact, wanted out. Several calls this morning to McCarthy and Thompson by FOXSports.com have not yet been returned. On Saturday, Favre railed against the team in an interview with his local Biloxi Sun Herald....