Tom Silverstein's take

[Scott Campbell]

Plausible Joe.

[Scott Campbell]

Damn though. Rodgers has to feel pretty good right now, having been giving the job OVER Brett freakin Favre.


One thing about this whole situation that might turn into a huge positive is how Rodgers teammates are going to view him after this. The Packer brass just chose Rodgers over Favre. They are jumping through all the BS to give Rodgers his chance. I'm pretty sure everyone in that lockerroom is going to have a pretty good idea who "the guy" is now.

Though it ain't over till it's over. I won't rule out Ted changing his mind. There's nothing yet done that can't be undone.

But I wouldn't bet on Brett as the starter against Minny.

[RashanGary]

Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

[Brando19]

Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers? Noone expected Favre to get hurt that game. It was a challenge because everything they had prepared for was thrown out the window.

[Scott Campbell]

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers?

By "they", do you mean the Packers, because the Packers didn't gameplan around Rodgers strengths either. He didn't get any 1st team reps all week leading up to the game. I think that argument cuts both ways, and his performance in that game shouldn't be dismissed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers? Noone expected Favre to get hurt that game. It was a challenge because everything they had prepared for was thrown out the window.

Agreed. Let's try not to pretend that ARod will likely be the better QB this year. I'm for shipping Favre out, but I'm not going to rip Brett for his ability. He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year, and he's probabbly one of the five best QBs in the game ever.

[bobblehead]

Who gives a fuck if they lose Rodgers,TT can't have as much faith in him as he proclaims or he would not have drafted two QB's. I said it before TT fucks this up and good luck getting ANYBODY to sign with the Pack. He will coe across as the egotistical prick that drove the legend out of Green Bay. It doesn't even matter if he did,players will have thier preconcieved ideas alredy.

Not true, just like always god will tell the players to go to the team offering the most money.....god is funny that way.

[Scott Campbell]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely.

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.

[pbmax]

While this is correct, Scott is also right that the gameplan wasn't tailored to Rodgers. And this is in essence what being an NFL QB is all about. And what makes the difference between practice and preseason or mop-up duty.

If you have a chance to prepare your O, can you as a QB take advantage of that gameplan (or help influence that gameplan) to beat a defense designed to stop your favorite or most effective plays?

That is the question no one can answer without at least one years worth of starts. And it is what makes it impossible to be sure Rodgers will fall short of Favre this year. That, and the fact that age might affect Favre in unanticipated ways.

Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers? Noone expected Favre to get hurt that game. It was a challenge because everything they had prepared for was thrown out the window.

Agreed. Let's try not to pretend that ARod will likely be the better QB this year. I'm for shipping Favre out, but I'm not going to rip Brett for his ability. He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year, and he's probabbly one of the five best QBs in the game ever.

[GBRulz]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely.

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.

[Scott Campbell]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely.

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.

I was just being a smartass. :P

[HarveyWallbangers]

While this is correct, Scott is also right that the gameplan wasn't tailored to Rodgers. And this is in essence what being an NFL QB is all about. And what makes the difference between practice and preseason or mop-up duty.

Not sure what exactly you are getting at. ARod looked good against Dallas. Dallas didn't game-plan against him. Maybe the Packers didn't tailor their offense for Rodgers. (Doubt it though, since they seemed to have more movement plays when Rodgers went in.) I'm excited about his future. However, decent QBs look good for awhile, but then teams learn how to game-plan them. With great (or legendary) QBs, it rarely matters what the game-plan is. We have no idea what we'll get with ARod.

[Scott Campbell]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely.

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.

I was just being a smartass. :P

[pbmax]

This wasn't the Derek Anderson experience. He didn't come into that game with an entire preseason of practice with the first team and an entire offseason to gear a gameplan around. Anderson looked lights out for half the season until he played his division again and everyone had tape. Then the numbers came down.

ARog had the Favre gameplan and whatever McCarthy thought up in the moment. I agree with you that the edge probably goes to the offense here, since the defense had no idea what Rodgers might do. But the Packers clearly couldn't have maximized Rodgers strengths during that game.

The movement plays I remember were Rodgers moving out of pressure, but as I was watching in a watering hole (thank you NFL network) I may not remember every play as well as I normally would.

So my point was, if the gameplan is designed around your strengths, can you as a QB beat a defense that knows what those strengths are? Like Anderson found out, can you be effective after everyone has seen you on tape or in person? That is the question about A Rog that we cannot answer when we compare him to Favre. It'll take a year at least. Normally, I would say longer, but unlike Favre or Marino, Rodgers has had three years prep work.

Favre clearly could beat many defenses that knew what he wanted to do. But his question is different: what skills will erode this year?

Its impossible to be sure. But I would rather trust the next five years of the Packers to Rodgers and Brohm than to Favre and Brohm. Becuase Brett might really be gone next year.

While this is correct, Scott is also right that the gameplan wasn't tailored to Rodgers. And this is in essence what being an NFL QB is all about. And what makes the difference between practice and preseason or mop-up duty.

Not sure what exactly you are getting at. ARod looked good against Dallas. Dallas didn't game-plan against him. Maybe the Packers didn't tailor their offense for Rodgers. (Doubt it though, since they seemed to have more movement plays when Rodgers went in.) I'm excited about his future. However, decent QBs look good for awhile, but then teams learn how to game-plan them. With great (or legendary) QBs, it rarely matters what the game-plan is. We have no idea what we'll get with ARod.