Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

[MJZiggy]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

[sheepshead]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

You have way too much time on your hands--but carry on as you will.

[Rastak]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

You have way too much time on your hands--but carry on as you will.

She's also 100% right.

[sheepshead]

scroll baack ohhhh police of all forums. I tried at least 3 times to challenge his view point, nicely(as i can be). He ignored it because ..well i dont know why.

Heres another way of looking at it. Do you think for one minute that arod would still be on this team if they didnt think he was good enough to start this september? wouldnt we have made a change by now? how many teams needed qbs over the last 3 years. this is not even a question in the eyes of TT and MM .

[Tarlam!]

You called the man a dope and when he called you on it, you suggested that he was too stupid or removed from the NFL not to agree with you that the question was stupid.

And yes, when you behave this boorishly to posters that I have been posting with for years and happen to like, I must stick my nose into everything. I try to look at new posters without the bias of the things they did before they got here, but your behavior since your arrival is proving Tarlam's initial assessment correct.

Is this where I get to exclaim "I told you so!"??

Ah Sheepdip, you just refuse to get it. Posters here love a good, fair debate.

DON'T CALL PEOPLE NAMES OR QUESTION THEIR INTELLIGENCE and you won't have anybody poking their noses into anything. Are you too stupid to understand the simplest forms of polite forum behaviour you fucking cretin?

[Patler]

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

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)

"Being time for" for a player does NOT absolutley mean the management thinks he is better than the player replaced. A team is a mixture and blend of components, with the goal being that the overall combination is better than before. They very much could believe that Rodgers time has come to start, even though they also believe Favre would be a better player in 2008, because they are also looking to 2009 and beyond.

I will ask a simple question that perhaps even you can deliberate; If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they tell Favre they wanted him back before he retired? As a follow-up question If they were convinced that Rodgers was a better alternative, why did they entertain the thought of Favre "un-retiring" the end of March? Both of those actions are completely inconsistent with your perceived absolute that they think Rodgers gives them the better chance. If they felt that, wouldn't they have encouraged Favre to retire, and wouldn't they have rebuffed his un-retiring talk the first time?

My thought is this, (which you should have understood from my initial post): I suspect they recognize Favre is still generally a better QB, and might help win a game or so during the season that Rodgers will not. But, they think they can make the playoffs regardless, and at the end of the season they believe Rodgers will be a better option than a 39 year old Favre in the playoffs.

Now, since you seem to think it is "clever" or otherwise a mark of your strength or prowess to swear at me or call me names, I will simply end this and not engage in further discussion with you if you continue to do so. You are not worth it, and have had no intelligent insights or comment to offer in this discussion anyway. In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.

[Patler]

scroll baack ohhhh police of all forums. I tried at least 3 times to challenge his view point, nicely(as i can be). He ignored it because ..well i dont know why.

Heres another way of looking at it. Do you think for one minute that arod would still be on this team if they didnt think he was good enough to start this september? wouldnt we have made a change by now? how many teams needed qbs over the last 3 years. this is not even a question in the eyes of TT and MM .

You seem to confuse "good enough to start" with who might be better.

Collins has been "good enough to start". Has he been better than Sharper?
We have had a string of guards "good enough to start". Has any one been beeter than Wahle would have been over that time?

[Tarlam!]

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

In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.

Sheepdip, you, sir, have just been Patlerized.

[Patler]

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?

duh?

This was your first "challenge" to my initial post. Did you REALLY expect a response? I responded to others who made statements or arguments. You provided nothing to which I could respond.

[Patler]

That canker sore that appears every 3 months or so?? Damn

This, I believe was your second post. Did you expect me to respond?

[Patler]

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

[quote="sheepshead"]

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?[/quote]

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

The above was your third post, and guess what? I did respond. See below:

sheepshead wrote:
(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.

[bobblehead]

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

In short, you seem to be thinking so shallowly that you do not even understand the point of the discussion.

Sheepdip, you, sir, have just been Patlerized.

I could school patler in debate...I just happen to agree with him most of the time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, Patler ain't so hot. I have kicked his ass many times.

[Patler]

ya, Patler ain't so hot. I have kicked his ass many times.

Ya, it still hurts!

[bobblehead]

ya, Patler ain't so hot. I have kicked his ass many times.

Ya, it still hurts!

did he say pricked or kicked?