McGinn: Football Dept Agrees, Favre Can't Win Championship

[The Leaper]

What about all the other games?

I'm not rehashing every game. What about the games we won? Are you forgetting those?

The notion that Favre is the MAIN reason for all our postseason failures in recent years is dumb. If you want to ascribe to it, fine. Be my guest.

[cpk1994]

As Patler suggested weeks ago, might Favre be the better regular season QB and Rodgers better in the playoffs (if Rodgers had a full year of starts behind him)?

No.

Because with Rodgers, I think we lose the Seahawks game. Favre was the reason the team was able to rebound from a 14-0 deficit...the knowledge that Favre the playmaker could bring them back, both on our side and maybe even more importantly on the SEAHAWK side. He took the ball down 14-0 and threw it almost every time in leading the team down the field to get back into the game.

Rodgers isn't capable of that yet IMO...not that he can't get there, but not at this point or at any time in 2008 IMO.

We don't have a dominant enough defense or running game to be considered a title contender with Rodgers right now. Perhaps things change during the course of this season, and we develop a true dominant running game or a defense that can provide consistent pressure on the pocket...but at this point, I don't see it.

Then there is no reason to play the season. Might was well lock up the stadium and forfiet the season. NO reason to play the games.

[Chevelle2]

What about all the other games?

I'm not rehashing every game. What about the games we won? Are you forgetting those?

All 3?

[pbmax]

Granted, there was plenty of blame to go around as the Packers were clearly the better team that year.

But it also was an early indication that Favre in the playoffs was no longer bulletproof. Its almost as if he can't stand a close game late.

So you think Sherman actually called for a jump ball into double coverage while everyone was run blocking?

... coaching blunders (PHI)

4th and 1...punt.
4th and 26...ugh.

Was either Favre's fault max?

The Packers had that game won long before Favre's INT...but poor decision making by the coaches and poor execution elsewhere let it get away.

That doesn't excuse Favre's throw...but that does show that it wasn't just Favre that was responsible for those losses.

[motife]

Montauk J. Jones :

Favre can still play? Maybe in week three against Detroit but not in a money game, a cold game, and God know's not a playoff game.

Bigger the game, bigger the choke job.

One thing about Rogers is we won't watch some wild eyed QB choking away the big game or folding like a cheap suit in the playoff's.

July 27, 2008 4:09 PM

[gex]

Shadow wrote:
"Tiresome. Go back to the Hannah Montana cd."


haters and bashers

[pbmax]

First TD drive, 4 Favre passes, 1 Grant run and 1 sack.

Second TD drive, 6 Grant runs, 5 Favre passes (1 incomplete)

I think Rodgers can handle one drive that's all throws. But that's just speculation, we'll see.

No.

Because with Rodgers, I think we lose the Seahawks game. Favre was the reason the team was able to rebound from a 14-0 deficit...the knowledge that Favre the playmaker could bring them back, both on our side and maybe even more importantly on the SEAHAWK side. He took the ball down 14-0 and threw it almost every time in leading the team down the field to get back into the game.

[The Leaper]

Then there is no reason to play the season. Might was well lock up the stadium and forfiet the season. NO reason to play the games.

In terms of winning a title in 2008, that is right IMO.

However, as Rodgers gains experience...and other guys develop...we'll have a better chance in 2009 and beyond by making the move now. After losing Davis and Favre, we'll probably STILL have the youngest roster in the league in 2009, or very close to it. All those kids need to gain experieince...that's what the games will be played for primarily in 2008.

[The Leaper]

I think Rodgers can handle one drive that's all throws. But that's just speculation, we'll see.

Under that kind of pressure? I'm not as certain as you are.

Again, I'm not saying Rodgers won't reach that point...just that he isn't anywhere close to that yet, just as Favre wasn't in 1993 or 1994.

[cpk1994]

Then there is no reason to play the season. Might was well lock up the stadium and forfiet the season. NO reason to play the games.

In terms of winning a title in 2008, that is right IMO.

However, as Rodgers gains experience...and other guys develop...we'll have a better chance in 2009 and beyond by making the move now. After losing Davis and Favre, we'll probably STILL have the youngest roster in the league in 2009, or very close to it. All those kids need to gain experieince...that's what the games will be played for primarily in 2008.

Ok boys you r heard Leaper. Cancel the season, shut this forum down, we have nothing to talk about until 2009. Leaper asys the season is over. Lets go nothing more to see.

[The Leaper]

Bottom line: We have tried a new player, sometimes 2, 3, new players at every single position since 1997. 3 new coaches, and 3 GMs, all to no avail. The only other position left to change, is QB.

Well, that QB has been the CONSTANT in non-losing records in 15 of the last 16 seasons.

I'm guessing that whoever the QBs are over the next 16 years, we won't come close to having 8 wins or more in 15 of them.

So, feel free to blame Favre all you want.

[Chevelle2]

Bottom line: We have tried a new player, sometimes 2, 3, new players at every single position since 1997. 3 new coaches, and 3 GMs, all to no avail. The only other position left to change, is QB.

Well, that QB has been the CONSTANT in non-losing records in 15 of the last 16 seasons.

I'm guessing that whoever the QBs are over the next 16 years, we won't come close to having 8 wins or more in 15 of them.

So, feel free to blame Favre all you want.

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

[Chevelle2]

Leaper -

Yes or no.

If Rodgers has 3 playoff wins from now until 2018, does he deserve a spot on this roster?

Yes, or no.

[The Leaper]

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

There are plenty who have none in 17 years.

[Chevelle2]

Id rather have SB than winning seasons, thanks. Why is it that other teams can get more than 1 SB in 17 years?

There are plenty who have none in 17 years.

Oh so we should be content with mediocracy, I see.