OFFICIAL BRETT THE LIVING LEGEND THREAD

[pbmax]

... We were in the playoffs last year and are a national favorite to win the SB.

Don't ever write this again. Peter King is a black cat and a ladder all rolled into one specious column. Everyone here needs to believe everyone out there is against the Packers and no one is giving the squad a chance.

If I was McCarthy, I would hide Rodgers and spread a rumor that he tore ligaments in both knees while line dancing in Vegas with a country music singer. Then sign Kurt Warner, no, Jeff Garcia to convince people you are serious.

[pbmax]

gosh for a while this thread was actual level headed; I see that's gone again

Really? I don't think there is anyone level headed in this thread. Everyone pretty much leans one way or the other.

I think Bretsky means emotionally stable as opposed to seeing both sides of the issue.

As for me, I have always argued we should have traded Favre and not Aaron Brooks.

[packers11]

who else is glad we don't have to wait all off-season to see if our starting QB comes back...

I hated T.T. when he drafted Rodgers... but man, do I think that was the best move he has done as a GM... THANK YOU!!!

[packerbacker1234]

Q

This whole fantasy that teams can't do it without Brett is a built up fairytale. For years we heard how the Packers were going to drop off the National face as soon as we lost Favre. We were in the playoffs last year and are a national favorite to win the SB.

Two years ago the Jets missed the playoffs with Brett, but Favre's fans credited Brett with their whole turn around. Year after he leaves, they're in the playoffs.

The Vikings were in the playoffs aftter startering Ferrotte and Jackson the year before. Ferrotte was out of the leauge the next year. They made the playoffs with a QB that didn't even belong in the league.

Now they made it with Brett and he's the savior/hero. They wouldn't have been there without him.

Sorry, not buying it. Vikings are good with our without Favre. Jets were. Packers are. And that goes to all of the Rodgers fans too. QB's don't make teams SB contenders. QB's are fortunate enough to play on SB contenders and then take all of the credit for it because the camera follows the ball. It's easy to forget the whole game that goes on because we don't see it unless we really look. Without a good team, a QB is useless. Brett too, Rodgers too.

Look, a lot of this is based on history. Are the Colts going to be good after Peyton retires? Chances are no. Most teams that lose there HOF QB do not recover like the packers did. The fact AR is so good is basically pure luck of the draw. This isn't knocking him, but look at history, It's very rare to transistion from Joe Montanna to Steve Young, or not Favre to Rodgers. It's a rare transition. Most teams take a long time to replace a legend and have many years of mediocrity after words.

Just look at Denver. How many QB's is it now since Elway? Thats the way it usually goes. The packers are the exception, not the rule. This isn't because of brett, it's just because he is a HOF QB - most teams can't "just replace" that. We were lucky we could.

And crediting the jets being so good last year to them just being good ignores the fact they ahve an entirely new coaching staff with an entirely new principle of being the baltimore ravens. Pound the rock and play stellar defense. That was not the mentality when favre was there. Yes, many of the same players, different style of play. Thats not brett's fault either direction. IF the defense when favre was there played like they did last season - they would of been in the playoffs. That defense was good when Favre was there - Rex Ryan made them great. Revis went from a pretty good corner, to under Ryan's reign becoming the elite of the elite - up there with a Charle's Woodson.

I am not taking things away from the players - Favre was not really a big reason for any sort of "turn around" for the Jets - that was firing Mangina and getting a real coach in. Rex Ryan so far appears to be the real deal.

I give all the credit to last seasons AFC Championship run to Rex Ryan and his staff.

The vikings are a good team without brett. No one has ever said otherwise. The question is, without him are they super bowl caliber?

The vikings went 9-7 and made the playoffs the year before brett with a QB rotation simply for the fact that no other team in the division had a winning record. The lions are generally never there, and the packers and bears had pretty bad seasons. Last year without brett, chances are tehe packers win the division - and the vikings are vying for another 9-7, 10-6 type WC position.

The vikings are a good team - having a RB like Adrian peterson with that OL and that Defense is going to win you games. Unfortunately, that generally wont win you SB's, and with a team like the packers in the division right now, and if jay cutler and the bears can turn it around in the next couple seasons - having a team that can go 9-7 every year isn't going to cut it. It may not even get you into the playoffs, let alone winning the division, first round bye, and NFC championship trips.

I am not saying Brett is solely responsible for them getting to the NFC Championship. To say that would be pure idiotic. AP, that offense, Sidney Rice coming into his own, Percy Harvin's fast development, solid defensive play - they all played a role. Brett could not get there on his own. It's also, in the end, generally true that they wouldn't of been there without him either. The colts are also a pretty good team, but without Peyton? They'll be teatering around .500 and a WC spot each season.

I mean, QB's do get too much credit, but it's understandibly so. Outside of the rare cases, most teams making SB runs are doing so with a QB thats is the elite caliber. Elite QB's do make a big difference on an offense.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Q

Most teams that lose there HOF QB do not recover like the packers did. The fact AR is so good is basically pure luck of the draw.

I guess it was pure luck that Ted hired an obscure offensive coordinator that pretty much had QB development as the only qualification on his resume.

[ThunderDan]

Re: Q

Most teams that lose there HOF QB do not recover like the packers did. The fact AR is so good is basically pure luck of the draw.

I guess it was pure luck that Ted hired an obscure offensive coordinator that pretty much had QB development as the only qualification on his resume.

How about the NE Pats after Brady went down in game one in 2008? They went 11-5. Darn HOF QB getting injuried.

How about Steve Young after Joe Montana in SF?

It seems like if you have a good system with a good front office losing your HOF QB isn't as horrible.

[Tony Oday]

Re: Q

Most teams that lose there HOF QB do not recover like the packers did. The fact AR is so good is basically pure luck of the draw.

I guess it was pure luck that Ted hired an obscure offensive coordinator that pretty much had QB development as the only qualification on his resume.

How about the NE Pats after Brady went down in game one in 2008? They went 11-5. Darn HOF QB getting injuried.

How about Steve Young after Joe Montana in SF?

It seems like if you have a good system with a good front office losing your HOF QB isn't as horrible.

Well those seem to be the exception to the rule. We got damn lucky that we have a guy that withstood the shadow and is playing great.

[ThunderDan]

But are they exceptions or is it because they had good systems with good coaches and a good GM?

NE has been the model of consistancy in the 2000s and SF was the king in the mid 80s to mid 90s.

[Tony Oday]

But are they exceptions or is it because they had good systems with good coaches and a good GM?

NE has been the model of consistancy in the 2000s and SF was the king in the mid 80s to mid 90s.

But look at SF since. I agree you have to have one hell of an organization to replace a hall of famer but also you need to have a hell of a lot of luck to find one much less two

[ThunderDan]

But are they exceptions or is it because they had good systems with good coaches and a good GM?

NE has been the model of consistancy in the 2000s and SF was the king in the mid 80s to mid 90s.

But look at SF since. I agree you have to have one hell of an organization to replace a hall of famer but also you need to have a hell of a lot of luck to find one much less two

SF went down after Walsh and Seifert left. Steve Mariuchi did OK but by 1999 SF was $24 million over the cap.

[Pugger]

I suppose we got lucky that Rodgers was passed over by all of those teams in that 2005 draft (and I'm sure there are more than a few GMs kicking themselves now) but TT didn't have to pull the trigger. QB wasn't a big need that year, even tho #4 was hemming and hawwing about 'retirement' back then. Packer fans should thank TT for considering the welfare of the franchise and its future. #4 wasn't going to play forever and now we are set at the most important position in football for years while MN will be stuck with god knows who once BF leaves. I still say they were stupid not to draft Clauson or McCoy last month - or were they fearful of upsetting #4 like TT did?

[packerbacker1234]

I suppose we got lucky that Rodgers was passed over by all of those teams in that 2005 draft (and I'm sure there are more than a few GMs kicking themselves now) but TT didn't have to pull the trigger. QB wasn't a big need that year, even tho #4 was hemming and hawwing about 'retirement' back then. Packer fans should thank TT for considering the welfare of the franchise and its future. #4 wasn't going to play forever and now we are set at the most important position in football for years while MN will be stuck with god knows who once BF leaves. I still say they were stupid not to draft Clauson or McCoy last month - or were they fearful of upsetting #4 like TT did?

Who knows what the vikings were thinking in the draft. It's doubtful even if they took a QB that it would of affected #4, when Favre knows even coming back this is most likely the last season anyways. Maybe they do believe Jackson is the answer? I mean, we all assume not because they already had Jackson and they went and got Favre anyways, but in the limited time Jackson had last season he looked like a different QB. Maybe it's truth, he said he learned things from Favre he hadn;t from any other QB, so maybe they really want to give him one more shot once favre retires?

[bobblehead]

Re: Q

Most teams that lose there HOF QB do not recover like the packers did. The fact AR is so good is basically pure luck of the draw.

I guess it was pure luck that Ted hired an obscure offensive coordinator that pretty much had QB development as the only qualification on his resume.

People often use luck when they can't admit an individual had a lot to do with it. Remember how BF and Sherman pouted when TT took a QB with that first pick....well, the old saying is, time will prove who is right and who is wrong.

[packerbacker1234]

Re: Q

Most teams that lose there HOF QB do not recover like the packers did. The fact AR is so good is basically pure luck of the draw.

I guess it was pure luck that Ted hired an obscure offensive coordinator that pretty much had QB development as the only qualification on his resume.

People often use luck when they can't admit an individual had a lot to do with it. Remember how BF and Sherman pouted when TT took a QB with that first pick....well, the old saying is, time will prove who is right and who is wrong.

Well, it was just one of those "odd" picks at the time. People figured that Brett was most likely still around for 2 or 3 more seasons, despite whatever the media kept blasting favre with the will he wont he questions - so naturally both were looking to draft players who make immediate impacts to improve the team to SB caliber. Rodgers was not that sort of player. Now, as time has moved on - Rodgers was clearly a great choice. However, I do understand the reasoning of not liking the pick at the time.

Afterall, we had needs in other areas to address - and who knows? Maybe if used the pick on something else, that someone else may have got us over the hump in the NFC Championship game and on our way to another ring in 2007? It's all a big what if game. I am happy we took rodgers today, but I admit I was sour when we initially took him, since it felt like we were "giving up" on getting back to the SB with #4.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Q

Afterall, we had needs in other areas to address - and who knows? Maybe if used the pick on something else, that someone else may have got us over the hump in the NFC Championship game and on our way to another ring in 2007?

Who knows - maybe if we had traded the younger Favre earlier and gotten more in return than a 3rd rounder, we might have already won multiple Superbowls behind a more seasoned Rodgers.