IS GB A LEADING SUPERBOWL CONTENDER EVEN W/O #4?

[mraynrand]

Only in Favre land do I always hear about the wrong routes. Our receivers must have been the biggest idiots ever.

Really? Receivers never run bad routes outside of 'Favre land?' Or is it that outside 'Favre land' they simply refuse to talk about bad routes, and lay the blame on the QB? Please explain.

[Partial]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't blame him for the Eagles INT. The wind was out of their sail at 4th and 1.

The Giants were a team of destiny that went on to beat the Perfect Pats. I don't fault him for this loss either. He didn't play great, but no one on the Pack did. Can't fault the guy for going to his #1 when going all in.

[Gunakor]

How do you know what Rodgers could or could not have done last year? You can't because nobody got a chance to see it. Well, except in preseason and the biggest regular season game of the year - and in both cases, Rodgers showed us that he COULD in fact "do shit" with the Packers last year.

And to say Favre did not fold in the biggest game of last season is rediculous. Deer-In-Headlights is an appropriate description of Favre in the second half of the NFC Championship game. Truth be told, Favre has lost significantly more big games over the last bunch of seasons than he's won. He isn't the clutch QB that many portray him as being.

Point is, Leaper, that we didn't see Rodgers play last year. We don't know what he could or couldn't have done. It's not rediculous hogwash to assume Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been given the opportunity. There was no way Brady could have led the Pats to a SB win his rookie year, at least not until he did it. There's no way Warner could have taken the Rams to the SB and won, but he did it. There's no way Rothlisberger could win 15 straight games his rookie year until he did it. There's no way Rodgers could have taken the Packers to a SB and won last year, but only because he wasn't given a chance. Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I.

Ya wanna know what "Ridiculous Hogwash" is? It's any shit being spouted by any assclown that would blame the loss against the Giants in the playoffs, soley on Brett Favre. "Deer-in-the-Headlights look"? It was 30-fucking below zero you Dousche Bag, but go ahead and interperet Favre's "look" in that game any way that you want, if it supports your own opinion.

Follow that stupidity with your bs about Favre losing more big games than he won. At least Favre has played in big games. For you to sit here and spout shit about how "If only Arod had been given a chance last year", speaks volumes to just how ignorant you are. The fucking guy has ZERO NFL starts. Nobody knows for sure how he will perform this season, not the Coaches, certainly not me, and definitely not an ignorant bastard like you.

1) How am I ignorant? Would I have been ignorant to predict Tom Brady (6th round draft pick, could not beat Drew Hensen for a starting job at Michigan) would win a Super Bowl the very minute that he stepped in for an injured Drew Bledsoe in his rookie season? Would I have been ignorant to predict Kurt Warner (Arena League, bagger at a food market) could take the Rams to a Super Bowl before the first snap he took replacing an injured Trent Green? According to you I would have been. Neither of those QB's had started even one NFL game before coming in to replace injured starters, and both led thier teams to a SB win the very season they tallied thier first NFL start. How can you be so sure that Aaron Rodgers (1st round pick, set all kinds of records in college) could not have done what Warner or Brady did? To assume it isn't possible sounds extremely ignorant on your part.

2) There is ample proof that Favre has not performed well in big games in recent seasons. His playoff record since 2000 is more than enough. And I never blamed the loss to the Giants solely on Favre. Please point out where I said that, because I never did. What I said was that Favre had a deer in headlights look, which is completely true. I know it was cold, but it was just as cold for Eli Manning - Eli did not have the same look that Favre did. Watch the game again. No, it was not completely Favre's fault, but Favre does get his share of the blame. After all of the mistakes made by everyone on the roster, the game went to overtime and the Packers had the ball. Had Favre brought his "A" game that night it would have been enough to overcome all of the other mistakes. It would have been enough to get a win.

Keep in mind, though, that the game against the Giants was not the first time Favre threw a season ending INT in overtime of a playoff game. It was the second time this decade. I have 10 years to back me up when I say that Favre has not been clutch in big games.

3) "Nobody knows for sure how he will perform this season, not the Coaches, certainly not me, and definitely not an ignorant bastard like you."

That's exactly what I said in my previous post.

"Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I."

Glad we agree.

You only call me ignorant because you are a glass half empty kind of guy. I on the other hand am a glass half full kind of guy. I embrace the opportunity that change brings. I don't claim to know for certain that Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been the starter. I only claim to know for certain that he could have been. I provided examples of other QB's who had absolutely NO shot at success in thier first year as starter, yet wound up winning the SB anyhow. Your assertion that Rodgers cannot be successful simply because he hasn't started a game yet does not hold water. Who's the ignorant one here?

[The Leaper]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't see the gripe with the Rams performance. Yeah, Favre stunk...but the Rams were a much better team, and the only chance the Packers had to win was by Favre tossing into coverage.

I don't see how you can make the argument that Green Bay can win that game on the road simply by playing "smart, close-to-the-vest" football.

[mraynrand]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't see the gripe with the Rams performance. Yeah, Favre stunk...but the Rams were a much better team, and the only chance the Packers had to win was by Favre tossing into coverage.

I don't see how you can make the argument that Green Bay can win that game on the road simply by playing "smart, close-to-the-vest" football.

A while ago I went back and looked through the Rams playoff game, frame by frame to analyze Favre's performance. By the time he threw his third INT, the game was pretty much over - after that he was just slinging it like crazy, trying to get something to happen. He played extremely well in the first half, with poor support from the run game, and turnovers by other players (Green and Freeman). It really comes down to one play - the INT and TD on a throw to Schroeder early on - and I can't quite figure out where the blame resides. Here's what happened: Schroeder is out in the right - split wide. He clearly thinks it's man coverage and that means he should run a go route. That's what he does. Favre sees the safety hanging back and must think it's zone, but right before the snap, the safety cheats up. My guess is that Schroeder saw this, but Favre either didn't see it, or guessed that it was a fake, and threw the quick slant, thinking Schroeder would run it. Assigning fault on that one play is difficult, but clearly, if Favre had been on the same page as Schroeder, it would have been a Packer TD - if Schroeder had been on Favre's page, it probably would have been a short gain or incomplete. Still, the Rams were the better team - CLEARLY - that day, and Favre, while having the memorable 6 INTs, actually played pretty well, with the possible exception of that one play, and another INT where he probably led Freeman too far.

[mraynrand]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't blame him for the Eagles INT. The wind was out of their sail at 4th and 1.

The Giants were a team of destiny that went on to beat the Perfect Pats. I don't fault him for this loss either. He didn't play great, but no one on the Pack did. Can't fault the guy for going to his #1 when going all in.

I can come up with some excuses for the Vikings game. 1) The Packers D spotted the Vikings 17 points (yes there was an INT by Favre leading to one drive, but that ball was wrestled away from Driver on a slant) 2) Longwell missed a critical FG 3) Walker and Clifton were lost due to injury. With Flanagan already out, the Packer line no longer blocked well in the run game 3) The Vikings, despite the reg. season wins, were every bit as good as the Packers - perhaps better. In the regular season, the Vikings gave the Eagles all they could handle and the Packers were slaughtered. 5) Recall again how terrible the Packers D was. They even allowed about a 6 minute drive to close out the playoff game, following Al Harris' blown coverage on the Moss TD.


Favre did not have a good game. I credit him with the responsibility for 2 of 4 INTs, and he did not play well down the stretch under the adverse conditions. He also totally bungled the drive late in the first half, not trying to get into the endzone. With Longwell's miss, that really killed the teams' momentum. being at the game, you could really feel the stadium deflate after that.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't blame him for the Eagles INT. The wind was out of their sail at 4th and 1.

It was overtime. They had the ball. You can't EVER let previous circumstances take the wind out of your sails in that situation.

Oh, so close we were.

[cheesner]

I voted yes, but I should have said no.

I do think they are in contention, but would not label them as a 'leading' SB contender. And losing Brett has nothing to do with it - it is the worries about the defensive line that is holding us back. We may hit the season and pick up the pace, who knows. Too many examples of the Packers looking weak in preseason, only to have individuals step forward during the season (see grant, bigby, T williams, Donald Lee, etc from last year alone.)

[Badgerinmaine]

If the question means "leading contender to reach the Super Bowl", I think the answer is "definitely--but only because they are in the NFC".

[mngolf19]

Good analysis, Harlan.

This seems to be shaping up as a parity season.

The Giants were a fluke and will be worst with injuiries and other personnel losses; The Cowboys haven't looked good at all in preseason; Tampa isn't even as good as their record last year; Who else is there in the NFC? The Vikings? Come on!

Even in the AFC, the Pats and Colts show signs of coming back to the pack. San Diego was a fluke and is hurting too. Jacksonville just doesn't seem as good as a lot of people think. Pittsburgh might be the team, but they have weaknesses too. The Jets with Favre? A big no way there!

The Packers IMO should be as good as last season, and the rest of the league should be a little weaker.

uhhhh..no

giants weren't exactly a fluke. their pass rush is tremendous but osi is a big loss. i don't think looking bad in preseason writes cowboys off as a contender; they have roster loaded with talent. vikings have a legit reason to be a contender. they were on the border and have improved.

where'd you get the idea that colts and pats are losing a step? are you thinking this statement based on preseason games without their two legendary QBs? they have injuries but once they heal, there is no question that both are contenders. saying that the chargers are a fluke is wrong. they had 3 or 4 games last year that they could and should have won. in the AFC championship game, their defense was really solid against the pats but their offense was missing LT, river had a torn knee ligament, gates had a toe problem. all of them are now getting healthy. losing merriman will hurt, but their defense always produces pressure and even had the most interceptions last year. jacksonville has been consistently making the playoffs despite playing in the same division as the colts for many years. in fact, many say this could be the year for them to knock off the colts with better pass rushers. saying pittsburg has weaknesses doesn't say much. all teams do.

i don't think packers are the leading team for SB win. they have the talent to be a playoff contender, but we need a better pass rush and consistent play from the o-line to reach the SB.

Just because circumstances/weather, etc. upgraded the relevance of their forte--the pass rush, and just because Manning had a sudden attack of maturity, and just because Al Harris picked that game to lose it--temporarily I hope, and just because Brett Favre caught a chill that day, doesn't mean their late season surge wasn't a fluke. There were/are at least a half dozen better NFC teams, not to mention at least that many in the AFC.

The Pats and Colts still are the class of the AFC, maybe the league, but they showed a few signs of deterioration last season. Both teams, especially the Patriots, have kinda sat still quality-wise and gotten older the past couple of seasons. The Chargers WERE a fluke last year, in part for the exact reasons you stated--the injuries. They, also, are possibly ready for a fall, as LT gets more mileage, as they play without their best defensive player, after losing LT's backup, etc. The Vikings are going nowhere with Jackson or worse at QB and poor receivers. Jacksonville is just a gut feeling on my part. Maybe I'm wrong and they will emerge as super, but I just can't see it happening.

I hope your team looks at Jackson and the Vikes the same way you do in week 1.

[Packers4Ever]

The Packers were Super Bowl contenders last year WITH Favre, and Favre looked like a worn-down old man who didn't want to play in the NFC championship game. I suspect the team had a better chance of advancing to the Super Bowl if Rodgers had played that game.

Favre is gone. Let him go.

But - he was GREAT in the first 1/3 of the season, Harlan, or thereabouts, remember? Sure didn't look like a worn-down old man to me. And the excitement continued to build, we won 9 of the last 11 plus that fabulous game with the Seahawks, before we started slipping away.

Some folks just take a little longer than others to adjust.
Some folks were lucky, they managed the "jump" lots sooner.
This is to take nothing away from Arod, he'll be fine.

[falco]

if GB learns to play this guy a bit more, i think we have a good shot at the SB

heck, if we had let him cover Burress in the championship game, we might have gone last year

[Partial]

You mean a blantant, obvious, automatic first down hands to the face if not a 15 yard facemask penalty?

Williams is alright for a Nic but I don't think he is anywhere near Ancient Al

[SnakeLH2006]

Re: IS GB A LEADING SUPERBOWL CONTENDER EVEN W/O #4?

good news! pro foootball prospectus author aaron schatz states this on espn first take. WOW...

he points to the youth, improved D (front 7 will be even better), and stacked roster as reasons why they will succeed even w/o lord favre


says that as long as arod is average we have the line, running game, and wr's to have great offense

also says giants will miss playoffs and cowgirls "are not superbowl contenders, jus another good team..."

Who'd we trade for?

[ThunderDan]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.