This might cheer some of us up a little bit

[MOBB DEEP]

Greg Gumbel's commentary is always worse than you think it's going to be. You think "Ah, he can't be that bad....it's just a false perception put out by fans."

And then you listen to him and immediately reach for the mute button.

RITE!! every time

[Patler]

1. There is an ongoing story that some on the coaching staff thought he completely failed to show leadership in the Giants game. A trip to the Super Bowl was on the line, and some felt Favre no longer had the passion to win that game at all costs. Some thought he was simply going through the motions in the second half, waiting for the game to get over. I have read and heard that some were lobbying for TT to encourage Favre to retire because of it.

I don't want to argue this point with you, because I got a sense of this too. I thought Favre could have fired up the troops, and could have played far better down the stretch. But where does this come from, on the team side? Can you tell me who are the 'Some' in your post (other than McCarthy and TT?). Position coach? Players? If you have examples or quotes available without too much effort, I'd like to read them.
.

I don't know which coaches were the "some" in my comment. I read it in an article, and also heard it in a radio broadcast. I'll look for the article.

[Cleft Crusty]

The only thing that makes sense is that the coaches and TT have reached the conclusion that Favre is no longer able to get them a Super Bowl win, so they are willing to try another QB. My earlier list is the information I have heard and read that supports that conclusion.

I argued the same thing, for overlapping reasons, right after the loss at Dallas. I incorrectly assumed the Packers would be returning to Dallas for the NFC Championship game, and argued that by starting Rodgers right away, the Packers could have him ready for the playoffs, and for a chance to win in Dallas, a place where Favre will never win. We'll never know if that would have worked, but it will be interesting to see how Rodgers stacks up compared the the 'out of favor' waffling Favre. Multiple teams in the NFL have been without a decent starting QB for decades or more, particularly the Lions and the Bears, so you have to be careful what you wish for...

[Patler]

Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.

I have no idea what was meant as the "reasons" but it was an interesting comment, and an interesting point that was made. Of course it was also said by "The Big Unit" on WTMJ, and I know many on here disbelieve most of what he says.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.

I have no idea what was meant as the "reasons" but it was an interesting comment, and an interesting point that was made. Of course it was also said by "The Big Unit" on WTMJ, and I know many on here disbelieve most of what he says.

Its a point I've been making. Thank you, thank you, hold your applause

[Patler]

The only thing that makes sense is that the coaches and TT have reached the conclusion that Favre is no longer able to get them a Super Bowl win, so they are willing to try another QB. My earlier list is the information I have heard and read that supports that conclusion.

I argued the same thing, for overlapping reasons, right after the loss at Dallas. I incorrectly assumed the Packers would be returning to Dallas for the NFC Championship game, and argued that by starting Rodgers right away, the Packers could have him ready for the playoffs, and for a chance to win in Dallas, a place where Favre will never win. We'll never know if that would have worked, but it will be interesting to see how Rodgers stacks up compared the the 'out of favor' waffling Favre. Multiple teams in the NFL have been without a decent starting QB for decades or more, particularly the Lions and the Bears, so you have to be careful what you wish for...

I think the point is that when you are convinced what you have won't get you there (a Super Bowl win), there is no reason not to try something else. If it doesn't work out you are no worse off, because what you had wasn't good enough anyway.

To some extent, sticking with Favre at 39 is just putting off the inevitable for a year or two anyway. His performance will decline, and his indecision can be grating on the team. A clean, quick break may be painful for a while but in the long run is the quickest entry into a new era.

[mraynrand]

To some extent, sticking with Favre at 39 is just putting off the inevitable for a year or two anyway. His performance will decline, and his indecision can be grating on the team. A clean, quick break may be painful for a while but in the long run is the quickest entry into a new era.

At 39, you have to consider the fragility and the decline of a fossil of a QB, with the exception that it is Favre, and you have to consider his intangibles. But if you make the clean break, then the new era is upon you. For all the reasons in your earlier post, I accept that the Packers have moved on, based on reasonable criteria. I will repeat that the Packer leadership seems OK with moving on and their confidence is justifiable given the fact that McCarthy has a great track record of improving the play of QBs, including young QBs, rookie QBs, and even old QBs who have developed bad habits (i.e. FAVRE). When you argue that the quick break may be painful for a while, I look at that like last year - where the coaches leaned on Favre while the offense matured around him. This year, they will lean on the rest of the offense (and the defense) as Rodgers (hopefully) matures. At the end of the discussion, at least the way they are dealing with the transition from Favre appears to be consistent with their overall philosophy regarding players. I assume that if they thought Favre gave them a better chance to win (considering ALL factors, including team chemistry, the lockerrom, special preferences, etc.), they would usher him back in - after all, they made an room for Robinson and all his baggage. So I have to conclude that they see Favre as more of a headache than an advantage. This decision will define Thompson's career and likely even McCarthy's career.

[The Leaper]

these are the big ones in my opinion patler. I can't begin to point out how often favre would throw a bonehead pick in a tight game and I always made a point to watch MM as favre wouild walk by him. He is like holmgren in that he truly abhors turnovers. He realizes rodgers won't win a game like the OT in denver the way favre did, but he won't throw the pick right before the half against KC or put it in Urlachers breadbasket inside our own 10 either. He views it as a wash and figures rodgers listens and gives less headaches for what will be a net push in overall performance.

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

So what if Favre threw a pick there? If it wasn't for him in that game, we'd be lucky to have 6 points on the board. That is what too many "but Favre makes too many bonehead throws" people fail to account for...that Favre typically makes up for those throws with all the great ones that you don't remember after a tough loss.

Show me a "manager" QB that wins titles, and I'll show you a team with a dominant defense and running game. We don't have either a dominant defense or a dominant run game right now...so Rodgers the "manager" ain't going to win dick.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

What? What was so special about throwing a ball about 27 yards to a wide open receiver? I love Favre, but this is a silly statement. Maybe you should watch the play again. It's on NFL.com.

[boiga]

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

How do you know? Obviously, if the Coaches are calling Rodgers number over Favre they think that he can make the game winning pass, hold up to offense etc. We, as fans, can't make a knowledgeable decision one way or another, but the people who would know best have faith in the guy.

Show me a "manager" QB that wins titles, and I'll show you a team with a dominant defense and running game. We don't have either a dominant defense or a dominant run game right now...so Rodgers the "manager" ain't going to win dick.

Tom Brady. Had an okay defense and minimal running game, took very few risks, and managed his team into 16-0.

[MOBB DEEP]

[quote="Patler"]Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.



so just remain clandestine so folk just engage in more conjecture and speculation? i get the integrity aspect but some things you said in your EXCELLENT and informative posts we fans should be hearing at least on a small scale.

who's to say that this isnt the product of more spinning anyway? i mean if MM TT felt brett couldnt/cant deliver any longer, y go down to miss? their perception has WAFFLED that much since jan to march to now? hmmmm....


GET WOLF...........

[Gunakor]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

texan, i would like some clarity here. y are the media guys a-holes? is there 1 in particular u feel that way about or do they exist in a vacuum. the questioning is just their job and without them where would we be?

his mind aint that weak that the media has that much influence i would thnk after nearly two decades

i DEF aggree though that he prob doesnt feel that strongly either way; thus the elusiveness for so long and ease with which he's stayed out of camp/not sent in that frickn letter that has been "signed" LOL

It would help if the media stopped asking the same fucking question over and over and over again. I have no problem with media asking questions. But when they get an answer then put it in print and DON'T ASK IT AGAIN. They have seemed to have a problem accepting answers for several years now re: Brett Favre. They feel the need to ask about his retirement 100 times per offseason. THAT is what is wrong with the media.

[MOBB DEEP]

[quote="boiga"]

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

How do you know? Obviously, if the Coaches are calling Rodgers number over Favre they think that he can make the game winning pass, hold up to offense etc. We, as fans, can't make a knowledgeable decision one way or another, but the people who would know best have faith in the guy.



BUT ACCORDING to patlers sources/posts its deeper than merely thinkn that arod is as skilled as #4

[boiga]

BUT ACCORDING to patlers sources/posts its deeper than merely thinkn that arod is as skilled as #4

He doesn't have to be as skilled as #4, he just has to be skilled. If he can get our receivers the ball, they can carry this team.

Arguing the what if's of each game is pointless. Sure Rodgers might have crumbled in the cold, but he also might have used a couple more short dump off passes instead of trying to force it to Driver in double coverage. Jennings and Jones can take a short pass to the house so we might have won that game, or not. We'll never know and it's pointless trying to rehash it.

Edit: Is anyone else getting server error problems?

[MOBB DEEP]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

texan, i would like some clarity here. y are the media guys a-holes? is there 1 in particular u feel that way about or do they exist in a vacuum. the questioning is just their job and without them where would we be?

his mind aint that weak that the media has that much influence i would thnk after nearly two decades

i DEF aggree though that he prob doesnt feel that strongly either way; thus the elusiveness for so long and ease with which he's stayed out of camp/not sent in that frickn letter that has been "signed" LOL

It would help if the media stopped asking the same fucking question over and over and over again. I have no problem with media asking questions. But when they get an answer then put it in print and DON'T ASK IT AGAIN. They have seemed to have a problem accepting answers for several years now re: Brett Favre. They feel the need to ask about his retirement 100 times per offseason. THAT is what is wrong with the media.

YEA, but the media does that with EVRYTHING (not just #4), but for some reason it seems that some posters here (along with stephen a. smith) get more frustrated when it comes to #4. INFORMATION AGE so just turn channel, etc. like i posted on another thread, ther's a reason for the love fest/preoccupation with #4. dont hate congradulate (ok, thats corny)

a lil off topic but i actually i feel that people get turned off towards favre b/c of all the coverage he gets (like its his fault) and are aAT LEAST subconsciously enjoying seeing him "exposed" as some sorta villain. being a psychologist i realize that this speaks to a myriad of underlying insecurities inherent in a multitude of individuals in our society