Favre Kool-Aid

[wist43]

If I see any reason for optimism on the offensive side of the ball, it is b/c of Favre.

I still regard Favre as a top 10 QB... his numbers may not reflect that, but I don't have to work too hard to make the case that his problems are due more to the mess around him, than anything to do with Favre himself.

If the Packers have been able to clean up their biggest mess, the OL, I could see Favre being able to carry them to a reasonable record - maybe even as high as 9-7... can't bring myself to see as high as 10-6.

The 3 essential ingredients to get there, IMO would be:

1) Solid defense (not the defense of the first 12 games).
2) OL improvement - considerable improvement.
3) Favre not only playing within himself, but making enough plays to win a game or two most think we shouldn't win.

Those three things have to happen for the Packers to have any shot at being better than .500. If any one of those 3 fails to happen, regardless of whether Jackson or Jones proves to be a player, I think it extremely unlikely the Packers can improve on last years 8-8.

Another year of watching Favre, the promise of an improved defense - that's as close as I'll get to drinking Kool-Aid... :smk:

[Packnut]

If I see any reason for optimism on the offensive side of the ball, it is b/c of Favre.

I still regard Favre as a top 10 QB... his numbers may not reflect that, but I don't have to work too hard to make the case that his problems are due more to the mess around him, than anything to do with Favre himself.

If the Packers have been able to clean up their biggest mess, the OL, I could see Favre being able to carry them to a reasonable record - maybe even as high as 9-7... can't bring myself to see as high as 10-6.

The 3 essential ingredients to get there, IMO would be:

1) Solid defense (not the defense of the first 12 games).
2) OL improvement - considerable improvement.
3) Favre not only playing within himself, but making enough plays to win a game or two most think we shouldn't win.

Those three things have to happen for the Packers to have any shot at being better than .500. If any one of those 3 fails to happen, regardless of whether Jackson or Jones proves to be a player, I think it extremely unlikely the Packers can improve on last years 8-8.

Another year of watching Favre, the promise of an improved defense - that's as close as I'll get to drinking Kool-Aid... :smk:


Yep, give #04 just a little bit of help and anything can happen.

[retailguy]

I would agree wist. most of the onus lies with the OL. However, someone has to step up behind the OL and run the ball. There is NO team right now that'll ever put 8 in the box to stop the run, and the passing game can't truly be successful if everyone is in coverage.

This is where I think we'll miss Green the most. The OL has to block better to get an additional receiver out in the field, AND, someone has to run the ball.

IF, (there we go again), those two things happen, I can see your kool-aid...

[Freak Out]

I'll drink that sweet nectar and :smk: the Packer herb as long as old #4 is around.

[RashanGary]

It really does bother you, RG, that people see this team as possibly competitive.

You go through a sharp toned IF routine as if young, high drafted players never step up.

You love Mike Sherman and you related so much to him that his successor succeeding would stomp on much of your belief system. I might have my reputation on the line, but you seem to have your pride and management belief style on the line.

I'll give you some friendly advice: detach your pride cart from Shermans train right now. I was on there once and I still think he's good coach but my lord, you're investing way too much effort into seeing his successor fail. It seems to be stressing you out lately.

[RashanGary]

It's been a long off season. I just want us to enjoy a competive training camp but sadly the ill will seems built up too high amongst a couple (not you scott) here. It's just going to be a big game of proving one right or the other.

Oh hell, I'm not above that. If we suck and it becomes clear that it wasn't injuries but our roster that stunk, I'll make a big "You were right and I was wrong" post and it will be sincere because I do think Thompson has no excuse to not put together a competitor when he still has Favre. If I'm right and you are wrong I'll enjoy rubbing both your's and Sherman's collective noses in it becuase Thompson succeeding without Green and Favre in his prime is a bigger success than Sherman succeeding with a gift roster.

[The Leaper]

If the OL improves, I don't think Morency/Jackson will have any problem making plays. They aren't devoid of talent. Both were first day selections in the draft. To me, the question with the RBs lies more in durability.

At this point in his career, Green offers no more ability to make plays than Morency or Jackson. Where he would help is in intangibles, esp. blocking, i.e. if the OL doesn't improve. However, if the OL doesn't improve, we are screwed regardless of whether or not Ahman is still in the backfield.

That is why Thompson made the correct decision to let Ahman go.

[RashanGary]

If the OL improves, I don't think Morency/Jackson will have any problem making plays. They aren't devoid of talent. Both were first day selections in the draft. To me, the question with the RBs lies more in durability.

At this point in his career, Green offers no more ability to make plays than Morency or Jackson. Where he would help is in intangibles, esp. blocking, i.e. if the OL doesn't improve. However, if the OL doesn't improve, we are screwed regardless of whether or not Ahman is still in the backfield.

That is why Thompson made the correct decision to let Ahman go.

I agree with this post and most of the others that you've been posting on the topic. Their health scares me. I think we need three decent backs this year. I'm hoping either Wynn or Pope beat out Herron. Hell, it might be a good idea to carry four like we did with TE's last year.

[Merlin]

Favre needs someone to catch the ball. I am not concerned about the pass protection so much. Favre can move just fine and plays better on the run anyway. It's not having anyone to throw to. When your top WR doesn't strike fear into anyone (not a knock on Driver, I think they guy is tops in the league) and the other starting position players no one has ever heard of before, you have to start wondering how hard the other teams defense is going to be laughing, triple covering Driver and watching everyone else run around lost.

[retailguy]

I would agree wist. most of the onus lies with the OL. However, someone has to step up behind the OL and run the ball. There is NO team right now that'll ever put 8 in the box to stop the run, and the passing game can't truly be successful if everyone is in coverage.

This is where I think we'll miss Green the most. The OL has to block better to get an additional receiver out in the field, AND, someone has to run the ball.

IF, (there we go again), those two things happen, I can see your kool-aid...


I quoted my post, because I don't see ANYTHING related to Sherman in it. JH you've got a one track mind.... get over it.

You can't expect a rookie back, and one with less than 150 carries to run behind an inexperienced line. It's just not realistic and it doesn't really matter who the coach is.

IF the line steps up, the RB's might have a chance to do something. IF they don't, the RB's will struggle and it won't be entirely their fault. Green has many years of experience and is more likely to run well behind this line than EITHER of the backs we've got. That's got nothing to do with Mike Sherman. NOTHING at all.

Give up the Sherman angle. It just makes you look like more of a fool.

[wist43]

It's true that when we're talking about the Packers being competitive, we do have to go thru a "sharp toned IF routine"... for good reason. This team has a ton of ifs.

Favre is one of those ifs, but I think he one of the most likely ifs to work out in the positive. I think he still has the arm, pocket presence, and vision... his mobility isn't what it once was, but he still has escapability. Favre has seen it all, and his experience in recognizing fronts and blitzes is invaluable. Favre can still direct an offense at a high level.

I'm not so sold on the rest of the bunch, but I think Favre still has it.

[Scott Campbell]

It just makes you look like more of a fool.



Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody else that doesn't agree with you is a fool.

And you never instigate personal attacks.

Sure RG, sure.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I agree with you Wist, people don't give Favre enough credit. He has Driver and maybe Jennings this year and that’s it. Franks can block and that’s it, and Jackson maybe a good back but he needs a dominate line to succeed as a rook (like the colts and pats last year). That’s why Green needs to be here, he just had a knack for making something out of nothing. (am not saying the line sucks because I like college and splitz a lot, but they have a lot of room to grow).

[BEARMAN]

#4 is done, washedup, over the hill, kapute. :doh:
Who's your backup QB ?

[Bretsky]

#4 is done, washedup, over the hill, kapute. :doh:
Who's your backup QB ?

The Bears only have backup QB's :lol: And I'm not sure you have any good ones

[Scott Campbell]

#4 is done, washedup, over the hill, kapute. :doh:


A few short weeks ago you were drooling all over him when you insisted he was leaving over the non-trade for Moss?

I could look it up and repost if your memory is a little fuzzy.

[BEARMAN]

Farve plays for the pack, he is old, on his last leg and washed up. :shock:
Farve plays for Da BEARS, ... we win the SB ! :twisted:

[Scott Campbell]

Favre plays for the pack, he is old, on his last leg and washed up. :shock:
Favre plays for Da BEARS, ... we win the SB ! :twisted:


Uh huh. Just what I thought.

I'll bet deep down you wish we had Grossman.

[retailguy]

Favre plays for the pack, he is old, on his last leg and washed up. :shock:
Favre plays for Da BEARS, ... we win the SB ! :twisted:


Uh huh. Just what I thought.

I'll bet deep down you wish we had Grossman.


We've got Rodgers. Isn't that close enough? :wink: