Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

[Deputy Nutz]

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 .

Maybe he doesn't need to communicate with assholes?

[sheepshead]

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.

This has nothing to do with TT's feelings. They, contrary to some opinions have bent over backwards for Brett. They believe ARod is the guy. They have had him for 3 years. If he wasnt the guy. He would not be here. He would have been traded. Understand? He is not here to be a back up. He is ready in the eyes of TT and MM. Any accommodation for Brett has been in respect to his service and his accomplishments. You sir need to step back and understand the roll of a GM in the NFL. I only used colorful language because I was being ignored or you went off on some tangent about Marco Fucking Rivera or God knows who. You are way too defensive for your own good. Think about the situation at hand instead of running emotionally coming up with half baked conspiracy theories.

My posts arent about me or my ego or anything of the sort. The point above cannot be disputed unless you think TT and MM are incompetent boobs and running this thing by the seat of their pants. The record speaks otherwise.

I dont know if the recent Robert Brooks comment rumor is true, but it would fall in line with what I am attempted to point out to you.

[Fritz]

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.

This has nothing to do with TT's feelings. They, contrary to some opinions have bent over backwards for Brett. They believe ARod is the guy. They have had him for 3 years. If he wasnt the guy. He would not be here. He would have been traded. Understand? He is not here to be a back up. He is ready in the eyes of TT and MM. Any accommodation for Brett has been in respect to his service and his accomplishments. You sir need to step back and understand the roll of a GM in the NFL. I only used colorful language because I was being ignored or you went off on some tangent about Marco Fucking Rivera or God knows who. You are way too defensive for your own good. Think about the situation at hand instead of running emotionally coming up with half baked conspiracy theories.

My posts arent about me or my ego or anything of the sort. The point above cannot be disputed unless you think TT and MM are incompetent boobs and running this thing by the seat of their pants. The record speaks otherwise.

I dont know if the recent Robert Brooks comment rumor is true, but it would fall in line with what I am attempted to point out to you.

A couple of comments, oh Sheep. First, if I understand correctly, your original point was that there needed to be no discussion as to whether or not TT and MM thought Rodgers might be so ready that he'd do just as well or better than Favre, so the team could afford to not bother with Favre's hemming and hawing. Your idea is that this was so obvious there was no debate possible.

Patler and others responded, suggesting that it was possible that (and Patler named the Wahle/Rivera and the Sharper cases as evidence, not as a "tangent") a GM might need to look at both the short term and long term health of the team, and from that perspective it's possible that TT saw Favre as in fact a better short term answer at QB, but given the need to think past just this year, he decided that it was better to not beg Favre for another year but to carry on with Rodgers.

Thus, the original premise of this thread would appear to be valid. It's a question of the short- and long term.

Secondly, your answer to Patler's question above appears to be that " Any accommodation for Brett has been in respect to his service and his accomplishments." This seems to contradict your earlier position, in which you staked out the territory that TT and MM feel that goiong with Rodgers is their best chance to win, and so that's why they didn't push for Favre to come back. If they were willing to take the PR lump because they believe so strongly in Rodgers, why would they then accommodate Favre out of "respect for his service and his accomplishments." That would suggest that TT has to consider more than just who the best player for this year would be...

Finally, Sheep, Patler has earned a great deal of respect on this site. He doesn't call names and has a reputation for doing research and using facts and thoughtful analysis. He doesn't call people names and get into squabbles. Other people operate differently here and are just as accepted. But your name-calling and, even in your post above, your constant descent into critiquing Patler's personality ("You are way too defensive for your own good") not only don't support the point you are supposedly trying to make, they suggest that (and any debater knows this) you don't have much legitimate ammo for your side, so you are attacking the person, not the ideas he offers.

In sum, you got nothing, Sheep.

[sheepshead]

Why is this about me? All im saying is if this was 2006 you might have a point. 3 years of camps and game films and more than $5 million in salary. TT et al believe ARod is ready.

If you can put aside all your assumptions, hearsay and innuendo and understand this:

If he wasnt ready for 2008, 2009 and/or beyond- he would be gone by now, he wouldn't be a member of the Green Bay Packers.

[Fritz]

I don't think many people would disagree with that last statement. Yes, I agree with you - the coaches and TT think he's ready.

[Carolina_Packer]

I don't think many people would disagree with that last statement. Yes, I agree with you - the coaches and TT think he's ready.

And since he was there, they probably felt less inclined to placate him in terms of waiting for him to unretire whenever he was going to do that. They just decided amongst themselves to move on and were glad they had A-Rod. If they weren't confident in him even after Brett retired, they would have given Brett a lot more leeway to decide whenever he saw fit.

Perhaps moving on was more of a sign of confidence in A-Rod than lack of confidence in Favre.

[Zool]

Perhaps moving on was more of a sign of confidence in A-Rod than lack of confidence in Favre.

Excellent way to put it.

[sharpe1027]

Jees - Ok..TT gets paid to put the best team on the field that he can. MM gets paid to win games and work closely with said GM. Of course they "are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre?"

Of course they are of that opinion? They believed that Favre was the better option only a few months ago. Where does that leave your theory? Something happened in the meantime and I don't think Favre's QBing ability suddenly dropped in a month or so.

I'm of the opinion it had to do with Favre posturing to get out of his contract and the Packers knowing all along that was his intention. Of course it could be any number of things, not all of them directly tied to whether Favre would ultimately have more success than Rodgers.

Do you REALLY think this is all based on ego and hurt feelings instead of people doing their jobs?

No, I don't. You pick one point out all the points presented and act as if that was the point of the entire post, nice, really nice. It baffles me how you can seemingly miss the entire point of my post. I wasn't expressing my personal opinion, I was showing that there were other possiblities and that you look like a fool when you state that it is so clear cut that there can't be any other explanation.

While we can debate whether or not TT should suck it up at this point, there is no question he feels he is doing whats best for the Packers.

Yes, most likely.

[sheepshead]

I don't think many people would disagree with that last statement. Yes, I agree with you - the coaches and TT think he's ready.

And since he was there, they probably felt less inclined to placate him in terms of waiting for him to unretire whenever he was going to do that. They just decided amongst themselves to move on and were glad they had A-Rod. If they weren't confident in him even after Brett retired, they would have given Brett a lot more leeway to decide whenever he saw fit.

Perhaps moving on was more of a sign of confidence in A-Rod than lack of confidence in Favre.

'xactly

[Fritz]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

Yes, the coaches have confidence in Rodgers. They may even think, all factors included, that they're better off - certainly long term, and when you factor in the backpedaling that would have to ensue to have Favre back at the helm (see Tony Dungy's comments on what a coach says to his team when a HOF QB retires) - maybe even the short term, with Rodgers. But that's a little different than if you took all the extraneous stuff out (is Favre really in shape? Did his retire-unretire game divide the locker room and cause the coach to lose cridiblilty?)and just asked them which guy, on the field for one game or one drive, would you rather have? The coaches and GM are not so ego-driven that they'd just say they like Rodgers better in that situation. They're not stupid. It's just that there are more factors than that one question involved.

[The Leaper]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

I don't know how you can argue that Fritz...at least in terms of 2008. Experience is a HUGE component in the NFL, and there is nowhere that is more apparent than at the QB position.

Favre is coming off an MVP caliber year and has gobs of experience...not to mention HOF talent. Trying to argue that Rodgers somehow is comparable to that is insanity.

I get the notion that Rodgers is ready, there isn't a better time than now to give him the reins, and that Rodgers is a better long term option. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that Rodgers could be anywhere near comparable to Favre in 2008. It isn't true.

If you really can't believe that, go look at the results first year QBs have had over the last 20 years...and let me know what percentage have a Pro Bowl caliber season or led their team to the playoffs. Let me clue you in...the percentage is very small.

[sheepshead]

However, Sheep, that was not the sum of the whole issue. The original premise was to question the assumption that so many people have made that Favre at the helm is automatically a better choice than Rodgers.

Yes, the coaches have confidence in Rodgers. They may even think, all factors included, that they're better off - certainly long term, and when you factor in the backpedaling that would have to ensue to have Favre back at the helm (see Tony Dungy's comments on what a coach says to his team when a HOF QB retires) - maybe even the short term, with Rodgers. But that's a little different than if you took all the extraneous stuff out (is Favre really in shape? Did his retire-unretire game divide the locker room and cause the coach to lose cridiblilty?)and just asked them which guy, on the field for one game or one drive, would you rather have? The coaches and GM are not so ego-driven that they'd just say they like Rodgers better in that situation. They're not stupid. It's just that there are more factors than that one question involved.

The original question was , and i'll paraphrase with a statement "Hey maybe the Packer brass thinks Aaron Rodgers is ready to start at quarterback for the Green Bay Packers NOW!!"

[vince]

It is far from a certainty that Favre will have the same kind of year he had last year if he were to return. He's obviously getting old and last year was an anomoly in terms of his performance since 2001. He does not possess "Hall of Fame talent" any more. The facts show that, over the last six years, Favre has been an above average - albeit very reliable - quarterback. Suggesting that he's been more is ignoring reality, and/or bleeding in his MVP years into the equation. That was a LONG time ago in football years.

He has more experience than any quarterback ever to play the game, but he isn't as good as he used to be, and he's getting worse. He's going to fall of the cliff soon. No one knows when "soon" is exactly, but it could very well be this year - if he were to return.

[sharpe1027]

The original question was , and i'll paraphrase with a statement "Hey maybe the Packer brass thinks Aaron Rodgers is ready to start at quarterback for the Green Bay Packers NOW!!"

Your paraphrase leaves out a very important part of the original question, which had to do with a comparison of what the Packers thought of their chances with Rodgers vs. Favre, not just whether Rodgers was ready to start. Huge difference (they can both be ready to start) and a much more difficult (arugably impossible to be certain) question to answer.

Maybe if you took the time to read the original question and think it through you wouldn't have thought that the answer was so simple...

[The Leaper]

He's getting old and last year was an anomoly in terms of his performance since 2001.

An anomoly how? Was he lucky? Did his supporting cast carry him?

The fact that he carried the entire offense the first 6-8 games of the year when we had no running game to speak of is somehow lost on you?

We know why his INT numbers went up under Sherman...he wasn't held accountable. It wasn't due to a lack of skill. We know why Favre's numbers were poor in 2005 and 2006...it is called injuries and lack of talent.

He does not possess Hall of Fame talent any more.

I would agree. He still possesses the talent to be a top 5 QB in the league RIGHT NOW. He proved as much last year.

Favre's arm will probably be good enough to play in the NFL until he is 45. He's a physical freak in that regard. His legs are already gone for the most part, so he can't lose much more there. I don't see where the massive dropoff in his play is going to come from.

Do I expect him to play as well as he did in 2007? No.

Do I expect Rodgers to play as well as Favre could in 2008? No.

I'm equally confident of both.