Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

[Patler]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

(quoting Patler): "The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?"


This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!

If it is so obvious, why have so many fans and sportswriters made statements to the effect that it goes without saying the Packers would be a better team in 2008 with Favre as the QB?

Did TT let Sharper go because he thought they would be just as good with a rookie starting?

Did TT not re-sign Rivera go because he thought any old guard would be just as good?

Did TT release Wahle because he thought they could win just as easily without him?

I would suggest the answers to the last three questions are : No. No. and No. All were done because situations required that they be done, even though all would likely have a negative impact in the season they happened. The GM has to have a mixed outlook of the long-term good of the team, and the best success in the upcoming season. If he looked only at the upcoming season, few rookies would make the team.

I also think many people think the same is true with the Favre situation, that for 2008 the team is worse off without him, but the situation got to a point that required it. I'm not convinced of that, and I think TT and MM believe their ultimate chance of playoff success in 2008 is no worse with Rodgers as their QB. This may not be a decision based solely on the long-term good of the team, it may also reflect their feelings about success in 2008.

[vince]

Maybe the Packers treated Favre the way the did because they thought he was more interested in playing for the Viqueens. Maybe they felt that Favre was intentionally waiting to put them in a hard spot so that they would release him.

I keep asking myself, why did he immediately ask for an outright release after one short phone conference? I'm also wondering why all the mudslinging started from his family and agent before that phone conversation. His recent interview was all about himself and not about the Packers as a team. I've given Brett a lot of leaway in the past for his actions on and off the field, I've been called and Favre apologists for it, but I look at the facts and find it hard to believe he truly wants to play for the Pack.

In my opinion, this is the case. The facts say as much. The rest is media posturing so he doesn't get lambasted by his fans and minimize the damage to the considerable goodwill he's built up over the years.

Brett Favre has dumped us folks. He wants to be a Viking, and he wants to be seen as the martyr by laying the blame on Ted Thompson.

[sheepshead]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

(quoting Patler): "The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?"


This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!

If it is so obvious, why have so many fans and sportswriters made statements to the effect that it goes without saying the Packers would be a better team in 2008 with Favre as the QB?

Did TT let Sharper go because he thought they would be just as good with a rookie starting?

Did TT not re-sign Rivera go because he thought any old guard would be just as good?

Did TT release Wahle because he thought they could win just as easily without him?

I would suggest the answers to the last three questions are : No. No. and No. All were done because situations required that they be done, even though all would likely have a negative impact in the season they happened. The GM has to have a mixed outlook of the long-term good of the team, and the best success in the upcoming season. If he looked only at the upcoming season, few rookies would make the team.

I also think many people think the same is true with the Favre situation, that for 2008 the team is worse off without him, but the situation got to a point that required it. I'm not convinced of that, and I think TT and MM believe their ultimate chance of playoff success in 2008 is no worse with Rodgers as their QB. This may not be a decision based solely on the long-term good of the team, it may also reflect their feelings about success in 2008.

Youre mistaken-if he thought he couldnt replace those guys(you can debate whether he was successful) he would not have let them go. I would have also let those guys go, you can only pay OL so much and Sharper (at that time) had lost it as far as I could tell.

Again, if TT didnt think Arod was ready to run this offense and win football games, we wouldnt be having this discussion. You want TT to predict the final record with Arod and with Favre?? Dude, there is no debate here. Take a look at what the GM of an NFL teams job description is.

[Patler]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

Youre mistaken-if he thought he couldnt replace those guys(you can debate whether he was successful) he would not have let them go. I would have also let those guys go, you can only pay OL so much and Sharper (at that time) had lost it as far as I could tell.

Again, if TT didnt think Arod was ready to run this offense and win football games, we wouldnt be having this discussion. You want TT to predict the final record with Arod and with Favre?? Dude, there is no debate here. Take a look at what the GM of an NFL teams job description is.

I seriously doubt that TT thought his replacement guards would be as good as the all-pro Rivera and the soon-to-be all-pro Wahle. He knew the replacements would not be as good that year, but long term status of the team required that they be allowed to leave.

Sure Rodgers can run the offense and win games, but that wasn't the question. The question was, who gives the team the best chance of winning it all in 2008. An awful lot of national writers and GB fans have very unequivocally said the answer to that question is Favre.

GMs have to have much more focus on the long-term situation than you give them credit for.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan makes a very good point above: the secondary effect of trading Favre to some crap team. He could easily be released or re-traded, and end up with the Vikings or Bears.

I wouldn't absolutely preclude a really really good offer--like a first round pick or better, though, as I really doubt Favre would have all that great a year regardless of who he might end up with.

That idea has to at least be in the back of Brett's mind too--less talent around him, the possibility of having to learn a new scheme, terminology, etc., all lessening his effectiveness--not to mention the fact that he stated he doesn't want to prepare like he did last year. I think he could step in and play a few games effectively--like if Rodgers got injured, but a whole season, or even half? He had a hard time last year in the absolute peak of conditioning and preparation.

Regarding the record, etc. with Rodgers compared with Favre, maybe a few know-nothing media types and some fans think we'd be better with Favre, but Thompson, McCarthy, me, and some others are confident Rodgers will do the job as good as Favre last year and much better than Favre would this year. I bet the detractors saying otherwise are the same ones who predicted doom and gloom last year too--instead of foreseeing the great season.

[sheepshead]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

Youre mistaken-if he thought he couldnt replace those guys(you can debate whether he was successful) he would not have let them go. I would have also let those guys go, you can only pay OL so much and Sharper (at that time) had lost it as far as I could tell.

Again, if TT didnt think Arod was ready to run this offense and win football games, we wouldnt be having this discussion. You want TT to predict the final record with Arod and with Favre?? Dude, there is no debate here. Take a look at what the GM of an NFL teams job description is.

I seriously doubt that TT thought his replacement guards would be as good as the all-pro Rivera and the soon-to-be all-pro Wahle. He knew the replacements would not be as good that year, but long term status of the team required that they be allowed to leave.

Sure Rodgers can run the offense and win games, but that wasn't the question. The question was, who gives the team the best chance of winning it all in 2008. An awful lot of national writers and GB fans have very unequivocally said the answer to that question is Favre.

GMs have to have much more focus on the long-term situation than you give them credit for.

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

[Patler]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

[swede]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why do they call it "dope" anyway?

[sheepshead]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

[imscott72]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

Ahhh Patler? Come now. Do you really expect a Rookie QB will get this year to where Favre could.? I don't.

Favre looks amazingly ready to me after seeing him and his outstanding spirit, movement arm and conditioning on the local late night sports last night. He's in absoloutly great looking condition by the reports and I verify that based on my brief witness. Brett Favre looks very ready and strong. Rested too. He will win again somewhere. I want it to be leading OUR team for another season.

Favre wants to get it on with us man. Not any other NFL team b ut he has been handcuffed.

Try hard to reach inside of YOU for 'that fact' Patler. Yet realistically all we're aware of today is 'the man' is Aaron Rodgers. That will likely not change and many here wish it would. I certainly do.

Favre is ready Patler.

Are you fucking retarded? He looks very ready and strong? Looks rested? His arm LOOKS good?

What are you? Have you ever played a sport before? Do you wear pink ballerina outfits while you post on PR?

Rodgers is NOT a rookie. A Rookie means you are months removed from college keg parties and orgies with STD-ridden women...

Not where Rodgers is... I have no idea how you can extrapolate Favre's ability to play an ENTIRE season based on that interview. Shit, what's his record in the cold playoffs?

Of course he's fucking rested.

HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.

jesus, i thought you were *ok* despite scott always bashing on you but man... you're just like 7 fries short of a happy meal.




now this is where you tell me that im sick and you feel sorry for me and that i need jesus and all of that since you don't have anything to really say to me.

[imscott72]

I look forward to this season because I think a lot of people are going to be suprised that Brett is very replacable.

Fine Harrell.

I've got $50 here that says the Packers won't reach 12 wins next year. If you think Rodgers is going to be so surprising in terms of replacing Favre, put your money where your mouth is.

I agree with Leaper. With Rodgers I think 10-6 is a possibility given the strength of the overall team (and assuming Rodgers stays healthy, and that's a big assumption). With Favre we could be looking at 13-3 and another division title. Brett's experience and chemistry with the offense can't be overlooked here when choosing between a Hall of Famer and a 1st year starter.

[MJZiggy]

Hell, I'd take that bet (but I don't have $50 )

[MJZiggy]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

Sheep, apparently you've never heard the dictum "there is no stupid question." There is no need in this thread to be cursing at people, and you've been asked specifically to speak to the ideas and you continue to berate the poster--and one of the best, most intelligent posters we have here? He knows a truckload more about football and the NFL than you ever will. Apparently a lot more about how to treat people as well.

[sheepshead]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

This is moronic hairsplitting and I do not follow the logic, much less the question which did not mention 2008. TT is doing his job always has. You can 20-20 the results, we all like to do that. But why do you think he makes moves in the first place....

He's running a football team you dope! If ARod wasnt the guy to step in, Favre or another vet would be the starting QB on 9-8-08--your response are making my headache-do you know anything about the national football league?

"You dope"??? Have I resorted to name calling in critiquing your remarks? Then why must you be so disrespectful of me???

The question didn't mention 2008? But it did. My original post:

The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?

I even had THIS YEAR in all caps in my original post to emphasize that I was discussing the upcoming season. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is the "dope".

Dude..youre a little over the top defensive here. It's a stoopid fucking question to ask if anyone thinks Thompson and McCarthy do their jobs day to day or are they acting like middle school girls and forming a club.

When they say "move on" it means they think its time for Arod. What the fuck other read can we possibly come up with?
If he wasnt ready for "this year" or 2008 or 2009, Thompson would have traded for a veteran QB to take Brett's place since Brett retired on March 6th.

( You really cant be this stupid or so removed from the NFL that you dont get this)

Sheep, apparently you've never heard the dictum "there is no stupid question." There is no need in this thread to be cursing at people, and you've been asked specifically to speak to the ideas and you continue to berate the poster--and one of the best, most intelligent posters we have here? He knows a truckload more about football and the NFL than you ever will. Apparently a lot more about how to treat people as well.

I dont slam the poster, i slam the post. If he is so proficient and knowledgeable then he can defend himself, no?

This is just one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. It's basis is ridiculous if you apply just a wee bit of critical thinking before you type. Besides, "there is no stupid question" applies in 6th grade. You can only assume the questions valid if you dont think TT and MM even do the day to day functions of their respective jobs correctly.

(must you stick your nose in everything?)