Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

[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.

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.

I havent seen or heard the term "gobs" in a while...cool.

[Tarlam!]

His legs are already gone for the most part, so he can't lose much more there.

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.

Favre or A-Rod would/will rely heavily on the play of our O-Line, especially on passing downs for protection. I think it is safe to assume Brett can get the ball out faster, but A-Rod proved in Dallas that he has legs. To me, the physical attributes seem to be a wash, notwithsatanding armstrength.

I would be concerned, though, with Favre's legs being gone. I don't think that they are, I think he runs selectively to avoid getting smashed in the mouth all too often, though he had one or two sweet runs last season that I recall.

[Joemailman]

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.

The percentage of first-year QB's succeeding may be small, but I'm sure that TT amd MM would say that Rodgers is not typical of first-year QB's He's a 1st round pick who has had 3 years to learn the offense inside and out, and has been able to observe up close one of the best QB's ever. He's also taking over a team that is talented, deep and coming off a 13-3 season. Not the typical situation for a 1st year QB.

[The Leaper]

Not the typical situation for a 1st year QB.

That is true...I would expect Rodgers to have more success than most first year starters.

However, the guy still only has 59 pass attempts in the NFL at this point. He's got a long way to go before he has a firm grasp of everything that is going on. The greatest learning for a QB happens on the field, not in a classroom or on the sidelines.

Claiming he is going to instantly be as good as a guy who knew our system and tendencies of many opponents inside-out is ridiculous.

[The Leaper]

Favre or A-Rod would/will rely heavily on the play of our O-Line, especially on passing downs for protection. I think it is safe to assume Brett can get the ball out faster, but A-Rod proved in Dallas that he has legs. To me, the physical attributes seem to be a wash, notwithsatanding armstrength.

Rodgers will see more blitzing. Teams did not blitz Favre much at all last season...and those that did were often torched because Favre normally could identify it and know how to attack it. Teams know that Rodgers will not have the understanding or experience to always know where to go with the ball in those situations. While our overall strength on offense will keep it from being an all-out blitzkrieg, Rodgers will see his share of pressure...especially early in the year.

I expect a much lower completion percentage overall and more sacks this season...although we may gain a higher efficiency on 3rd downs because of Rodgers' scrambling. He will pick up some 3rd and 3s that Favre couldn't have done last year.

[Bretsky]

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.

You also ignore reality IMO when you fail to look at the WR core Favre has had to throw to over the past six years. One could argue last year's core was well above average for the first time in a while........and look at the numbers he put up when surrounded with an above average cast. One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.

[pack4to84]

I have been watching this thread since it started. Waiting to see if someone would point out the obvious reason for Favre decline or failures of late besides aging. The Tampa 2/Cover 2 defense was designed by Tony Dungy for the Vikings to stop or slow down Favre. Now so many teams run this or similar type of defense, because of the success teams that use it stopped Favre from going nuts on them. For those who don't know why the Tampa 2 defense affects Favre more then other QB's I will point it out for you.

Favre has a cannon of a arm. He throws almost every throw at a low altitude so the Tampa 2 defense of scheme puts a body into every throwing lane. Since Favre throws without an arch its gets batted down or INT by many of the up man in the zone's. Also causing tipped balls the get INT. The weakness of Tampa 2/cover 2 is TE over middle behind the MLB in front of S or Corner routes by a slot receiver/TE. But since Favre throws low altitude MLB seem to knock down or INT many of his passes over the middle. That's why the Packers switched to a faster TE so Favre could hit him deeper causing the MLB to play deeper then Packers would hit a WR doing a crossing route underneath the MLB. Problem with this teams started to realize if Favre waited for the TE to get deeper he wouldn't have as much time to throw it. So later in the year teams force Favre to throw underneath more.

This is why I believe MM and TT in theory are thinking the Rodgers might break this mold of the Tamp2/cover2 defense. Which by the way every team in our division run's. Rodgers throw's with an arch so an 10/15yd out patterns by the WR could be a new weapon in our system this year. This could cause teams running the tamp 2/cover 2 defense would have to play more man2man defense. Tampa 2/cover2 defenses don't use man2man type corners. Which could in return cause mismatches. I know I will take a lot flack for this but I have been saying this to my family and friends for 2 years. I love to watch Favre but I really believe the game has caught up to him. Ever since L.Smith said he knew how to beat Favre and has done it. I wanted to know why his Tamp 2/Cover2 scheme works so well vs Favre.

[vince]

One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.

Absolutely agree Bretsky. That's a very reasonable argument to make, but it can be debated. And it can be debated whether the Packers should be thinking only of 08. An equally reasonable argument can be made for moving on, and I think that's at least part of the point of this thread.

Instead, there's this kind of overly simplistic crap flying around the board in the sheer brilliance that is the "Buy Low, Sell High" thread, "not having [Favre] as our starting QB is absolutely insane..."

I'm pretty sure McCarthy's got his wits about him Pacopete and I'll support his decision in this regard...

[packinpatland]

One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.

Absolutely agree Bretsky. That's a very reasonable argument to make, but it can be debated. And it can be debated whether the Packers should be thinking only of 08. An equally reasonable argument can be made for moving on, and I think that's at least part of the point of this thread.

Instead, there's this kind of overly simplistic crap flying around the board, "not having [Favre] as our starting QB is absolutely insane..."

I'm pretty sure McCarthy's got his wits about him Pacopete and I'll support his decision in this regard...

I agree as well.

[Bretsky]

One could easily argue that Favre can still be an exceptional QB when surrounded with talent. I also think it's very reasonable to figure GB is much better off in 08 with Favre.

Absolutely agree Bretsky. That's a very reasonable argument to make, but it can be debated. And it can be debated whether the Packers should be thinking only of 08. An equally reasonable argument can be made for moving on, and I think that's at least part of the point of this thread.

Instead, there's this kind of overly simplistic crap flying around the board in the sheer brilliance that is the "Buy Low, Sell High" thread, "not having [Favre] as our starting QB is absolutely insane..."

...

I'd agree with this; being the win now guy and worry about later later you would understand why I remain in the minority in wanting TT and BF to resolve any differences and make things work in Green Bay

[Joemailman]

Bretsky,

I think most people here would still prefer that Favre be the Packer QB in 2008. However, I think the vast majority have stopped believing it can still happen since the Fox interview. Most think Favre burned his bridges here (I'm not so sure), and so have moved on to deciding whether Favre should play with someone else or retire. It doesn't help that Favre has shown no sign that he would like to return to Green Bay.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I find it pretty lame that many of the people who demand that Favre be brought back as a guaranteed starter call those who disagree with them "favre haters", or anti-Favre.

You might not agree with McCarthy's decision to let Favre go, maybe it will prove to be wrong. But to suggest that there is only one right answer is ignorant. Plenty of smart football people agree with TT & MM. It is TT & MM's job to make the hard choice, they can't please everybody.

[Carolina_Packer]

I find it pretty lame that many of the people who demand that Favre be brought back as a guaranteed starter call those who disagree with them "favre haters", or anti-Favre.

You might not agree with McCarthy's decision to let Favre go, maybe it will prove to be wrong. But to suggest that there is only one right answer is ignorant. Plenty of smart football people agree with TT & MM. It is TT & MM's job to make the hard choice, they can't please everybody.

This issue mostly had to do with the timing of Favre's interest to come back. The Favre supporters will say he should have been welcomed back no matter when he made his decision because his ability to lead the team in the short-term trumps all. The anti-Favre/possibly pro TT supporters are sick of the Favre off-season antics and are OK to see him come back in his newly defined role, get traded or stay retired. If Brett could have made up his mind sooner, none of this would be occuring. Conversely, if management had bent more on his comeback and said, "we still think he can play and gives us the best chance to win now", then the matter would also be moot. I guess management saw enough of Rodgers in off-season OTA's and mini-camp to be so confident as to not flinch on a possible guaranteed starting role for Favre.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The anti-Favre/possibly pro TT supporters are sick of the Favre off-season antics and are OK to see him come back in his newly defined role, get traded or stay retired.

OK, but these people are not "anti-Favre."

Conversely, if management had bent more on his comeback and said, "we still think he can play and gives us the best chance to win now", then the matter would also be moot.

they obviously have a different judgement than this. They are looking at a lot of factors.

McGinn's article covered those likely reasons pretty well.

[mraynrand]

pack4to84:


Interesting ideas, and probably have some truth to them, but the bigger factor for the successful Tampa 2 is simply pressure. Favre, like many QBs, reacts to pressure and the Tampa 2 works best when the opposing team gets pressure on Favre. Favre can kill most teams that try to pressure him, but it's harder with the Tampa 2 because they will give you the dink and dunk crap, but limit anything down field. But the key is the pressure. Favre looked bad against Tampa when they really had the guys to create pressure up front - as he did against Philly, Chicago the past several years, against the Rams at their defensive peak, and in some games at Minnesota. The difference with Favre is that unlike other QBs, he at times won't quit on a bad play, and will throw it into coverage/up for grabs to avoid the sack and/or to try to make a play, leading to disasters like 2003 at Philly, 2001 at St. Louis, and 2002 at Tampa.

I have to say, those killer throws, thrown by Favre, are probably the main reason I don't want him to come back - Love the guy, love watching him play, but the killer INTs by Favre, because they are being thrown BY Favre, are just too hard to take anymore.