The only way TT and M3 walk away winners...

[cpk1994]

If the Packers do not win a super bowl in the next 3 years, then they are big time losers. They have a very legitimate chance this year with Favre. By throwing that away and saying screw you to the vets of the team, they had better win one in the next few years. I suspect they won't, and M3 will go down with TT unfortunately, which is a shame because M3 seems like a good guy and good coach (read: not at all slippery or snake like).

THey aren't saying screw you to the vets at all. They are sending a message that this TEAM values committment. Anything less and your ass is gone.

[hoosier]

A SB appearance/win is the only way for these guys to remove themselves from #4s shadow.

If Favre goes to another team this year and stinks it up (not that I'd ever wish that on him ) then I don't think there would even be a shadow. The only way there's a shadow is if Favre retires or lights it up while dressed in purple.

[Partial]

If the Packers do not win a super bowl in the next 3 years, then they are big time losers. They have a very legitimate chance this year with Favre. By throwing that away and saying screw you to the vets of the team, they had better win one in the next few years. I suspect they won't, and M3 will go down with TT unfortunately, which is a shame because M3 seems like a good guy and good coach (read: not at all slippery or snake like).

THey aren't saying screw you to the vets at all. They are sending a message that this TEAM values committment. Anything less and your ass is gone.

Where is the commitment from the team to the vets who have been committed? Going with an essentially rookie quarterback who is extremely unproven over a guy who was selected by knowledgeable journalists (read: not your average Rodgers supporter here) to be the second best player in the NFL last year.

Respect and commitment are a two way street, and while Chad Clifton may have been extremely committed all off-season where is the team's commitment to his desire to win and reward for his commitment and hard work? What a joke.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The poll question is slanted against Thompson and McCarthy. Favre is good for one, maybe two years. Whatever happens after that would have happened either way--this sage has little bearing on it.

Considering we haven't won a Super Bowl in almost 12 years with Favre, it's a bit much to say the only way they win this sage is to win a Super Bowl.

[cpk1994]

If the Packers do not win a super bowl in the next 3 years, then they are big time losers. They have a very legitimate chance this year with Favre. By throwing that away and saying screw you to the vets of the team, they had better win one in the next few years. I suspect they won't, and M3 will go down with TT unfortunately, which is a shame because M3 seems like a good guy and good coach (read: not at all slippery or snake like).

THey aren't saying screw you to the vets at all. They are sending a message that this TEAM values committment. Anything less and your ass is gone.

Where is the commitment from the team to the vets who have been committed? Going with an essentially rookie quarterback who is extremely unproven over a guy who was selected by knowledgeable journalists (read: not your average Rodgers supporter here) to be the second best player in the NFL last year.

Respect and commitment are a two way street, and while Chad Clifton may have been extremely committed all off-season where is the team's commitment to his desire to win and reward for his commitment and hard work? What a joke.

The commitmment is there. Doesn't matter who your QB is there. He has the same shot at the SB. HOwever with Rodgers he also has total commitmment from a QB who isn't runnung his mouth to ESPN, throwing management under the bus and making a spectacle of himself. Also, you act as if Rodgers is totally incapable of getting to the SB. If Wrex Grossman can get to the SB, Rodgers is more than capable of doing the same.

[The Leaper]

Doesn't matter who your QB is there. He has the same shot at the SB.

So you are claiming that Green Bay would have the same chance at a Super Bowl regardless of who the QB was...be it Tom Brady or Rex Grossman?

[cpk1994]

Doesn't matter who your QB is there. He has the same shot at the SB.

So you are claiming that Green Bay would have the same chance at a Super Bowl regardless of who the QB was...be it Tom Brady or Rex Grossman?

Absolutely, Every starting QB has the same chance of getting to the SB: 1/16. Doesn't matter if its Brady Manning, Favre or Rodgers. And seeing as the list of SB starting Qb's includes:

Trent Dilfer
Rex Grossman
Brad Johnson
Jeff Hostetler
and
Mark Rypien

Rodgers is more than capable of leading this team to the Super Bowl.

[boiga]

Doesn't matter who your QB is there. He has the same shot at the SB.

So you are claiming that Green Bay would have the same chance at a Super Bowl regardless of who the QB was...be it Tom Brady or Rex Grossman?

The choice between these two QB's makes that question difficult.

Who has a better chance of leading us deep in the playoffs: an improving Rodgers or declining Favre? There is a reasonable argument for both candidates. It's not a one sided issue.

[Pugger]

The poll question is slanted against Thompson and McCarthy. Favre is good for one, maybe two years. Whatever happens after that would have happened either way--this sage has little bearing on it.

Considering we haven't won a Super Bowl in almost 12 years with Favre, it's a bit much to say the only way they win this sage is to win a Super Bowl.

There is no way to know if Brett will continue to play like he did last season. Every player once he reaches a certain age will hit a wall. (We all gotta pray Harris and Woodson won't this coming year!) And just because Brett has this incredible game starting streak there is no guarantee that he'll stay healthy this year either. The law of averages in a violent game will even out eventually.

[The Leaper]

Who has a better chance of leading us deep in the playoffs: an improving Rodgers or declining Favre? There is a reasonable argument for both candidates. It's not a one sided issue.

My take is that Favre offers a significant advantage over Rodgers in 2008.

If you want to support Rodgers as the starter, I think there are other logical points that make sense...Favre's constant waffling, focus on commitment, Favre's short term status, etc.

Favre remains a better option at QB than Rodgers IMO for 2008. Rodgers is going to have some major growing pains IMO...as most young QBs do.

[Partial]

The poll question is slanted against Thompson and McCarthy. Favre is good for one, maybe two years. Whatever happens after that would have happened either way--this sage has little bearing on it.

Considering we haven't won a Super Bowl in almost 12 years with Favre, it's a bit much to say the only way they win this sage is to win a Super Bowl.

Why? We were on the cusp of a super bowl last year with super Favre and incredibly young team. What reason is their to believe that our other players won't get better? Super bowl or bust.

[Partial]

If the Packers do not win a super bowl in the next 3 years, then they are big time losers. They have a very legitimate chance this year with Favre. By throwing that away and saying screw you to the vets of the team, they had better win one in the next few years. I suspect they won't, and M3 will go down with TT unfortunately, which is a shame because M3 seems like a good guy and good coach (read: not at all slippery or snake like).

THey aren't saying screw you to the vets at all. They are sending a message that this TEAM values committment. Anything less and your ass is gone.

Where is the commitment from the team to the vets who have been committed? Going with an essentially rookie quarterback who is extremely unproven over a guy who was selected by knowledgeable journalists (read: not your average Rodgers supporter here) to be the second best player in the NFL last year.

Respect and commitment are a two way street, and while Chad Clifton may have been extremely committed all off-season where is the team's commitment to his desire to win and reward for his commitment and hard work? What a joke.

The commitmment is there. Doesn't matter who your QB is there. He has the same shot at the SB. HOwever with Rodgers he also has total commitmment from a QB who isn't runnung his mouth to ESPN, throwing management under the bus and making a spectacle of himself. Also, you act as if Rodgers is totally incapable of getting to the SB. If Wrex Grossman can get to the SB, Rodgers is more than capable of doing the same.

The commitment is there? Where? I don't see the organization returning the commitment to win that the players are. How is starting an injury-prone (thus far), inexperienced qb who has never won any game he has played in a comittment to winning and a sign of respect to the vets who give it there all day in and day out?

You cannot say that about Rodgers until he does it. That's an awfully big assumption don't you think? Comparing a guy who has never started a game to Rex Grossman, who that year led the NFL in games with a QB rating above 100 and took his team to the super bowl, is idiotic at best.

[The Leaper]

There is no way to know if Brett will continue to play like he did last season.

And there is no way of knowing how Rodgers will play whatsoever. I think that is the larger point.

Favre = 15 of 16 seasons of at least 8 wins
Rodgers = ????

For 2008, Favre is a better option for success. However, because Rodgers is a better option for success long term, you can make the argument that going with Rodgers makes sense even if it is a step back short term.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A SB appearance/win is the only way for these guys to remove themselves from #4s shadow.

in a way, that would be true whether we had this Brett Favre nervous breakdown or not.

Every GM is expected to eventually take a team to the SB

[Packers4Glory]

the goal is to win. Favre gives them the best chance. why they are so anti-Favre now is beyond understanding.

If AR tanks they should both be canned if this keeps going like it is.

They don't want to trade or release brett, but they don't want him starting for the Packers??? Explain this to me. They think AR is the better option so why do they care who he plays for? we obviously have the better QB in AR