With all the troubles at WR, why didnt the packers...

[Homer Jay]

I fear I did a bad job of asking my question. I'll try again.

When is the last time the signing of a big name free agent wide receiver put the team over the top and made them super bowl contenders?

[woodbuck27]

I'd say the 4 forced turnovers by the Patriot defense was more of a difference maker than 11 catches. Branch had a big game, but he wasn't the deciding factor.

Then how about last year's Super Bowl? WR Hines Ward winning that Bowls MVP?

Ward, caught five passes for 123 yards and a touchdown in the Steelers' 21-10 victory over Seattle in Super Bowl XL.

How soon we forget.

Then there was WR Jerry Rice winning the MVP in Super Bowl XXIII.Another WR with 11 catch's in a Super Bowl. His 215 receiving yards, on 11 catches, were a single-game best. Using Rice's talents and the most famous drive in Super Bowl history, the 49ers became the first NFC team to win three Super Bowls with their 20-16 victory over Cincinnati.

Following Stanford Jennings' kickoff-return touchdown that gave the Bengals the lead, Rice's 14-yard touchdown catch from Joe Montana tied the score at 13-13. A Jim Breech field goal with less than four minutes remaining gave Cincinnati the lead, but the 49ers one more shot. Moving 92 yards in 11 plays, including several key catches by Rice, the 49ers drove to the winning touchdown, a 10-yard pass from Montana to John Taylor.

Then in Super Bowl XI WR Fred Biletnikoff won the MVP. He helped Oakland win its first NFL title with a 32-14 victory over Minnesota. While Biletnikoff had only 4 receptions for 79 yards, three of his catches set up short Oakland touchdowns.

Finally in Super Bowl X, WR Lynn Swann won the MVP. Lynn Swann, who set a then Super Bowl record with 161 receiving yards on 4 catches and earned Most Valuable Player honors.

A 64-yard touchdown pass from future two-time Super Bowl MVP Terry Bradshaw to Swann late in the fourth quarter proved to be the decisive score.

Earlier in the game, Swann had made a couple of acrobatic catches. One of them, a juggling, tumbling, 53-yard catch in the second quarter, is one of the Super Bowl's greatest plays. Stumbling over a defender, Swann was horizontal, parallel with the field in midair when he caught the pass.

WR's certainly made differences in Super Bowl games.

[Patler]

Deion Branch acounted for 133 yards of Tom Brady's total of 236 yards through the air, or 56.4% of the passing yards in that Super Bowl win. Clearly those 133 yards and Branch's fine day with timely catch's, made a difference in the Pat's victory. Deion Branch was outstanding that day.Didn't you see that game shamrockfan?

On the other side clearly T.O. had the best day. Considering he was playing not in top form health wise. Any day a receiver goes over 100 yards it's considered a fine game for that WR. Well 122 yards in 9 catch's fits that billing. The cosest any other Eagle receiver was to T.O.'s performance was Todd Pinkston with 4 catch's and 82 yards.

I'm not going to get dragged into one of your circle jerk, twisting arguments shamrockfan.

Again I have clearly demonstrated that a WR can be a difference maker in a Super Bowl game, and whenever that WR is voted as the Super bowl MVP some people obviously agreed with what I saw in that game. Deion Branch deserved his MVP. He was the difference maker in many fans eyes and in those who awarded him his MVP.

Yes, I saw the game, and I thought Owens was the better receiver.
I disagree that you have shown anything. Was Branch a difference maker when Owens had a game equally as good or even better?

Branch got the MVP simply because he set the Super Bowl record for receptions. His yardage was nothing spectacular, especially for the number of catches he had. No touchdowns? How impressive was that???

"Branch got the MVP simply because he set the Super Bowl record for receptions." shamrockfan 'the (I wonder) argument man'

There YOU go ! You make my case for me - THANKS shamrockfan. Now imagine how impressed we would all be, if he had hauled in a touchdown pass. NOT ! Not. . if you saw that game.

The way he played it wasn't - all that mattered. he certainly helped big time to set things up to score. You can't paint a house before you purchase the paint. Eh !

Setting the ALL time record for receptions, would be considered a difference maker to most people. If your not one of them, I appreciate that for whatever is important to you maan. Whatever floats YOUR boat, shamrockfan.

ref: circle jerk arguments

I don't quite understand your "circle jerk arguments" comments. If you prefer that I do not respond to your arguments in the future, just say the word and I will be happy to comply. You will be the third member of this board to whom I will no longer respond, if you find my arguments that offensive. I'm not here to antagonize you, only to disagree with you!!!

To me, it defies logic to suggest that receiver "A" made the difference in the game by catching 11 passes for 130 yards when an opposing receiver "B" caught 9 passes for 120 yards. The difference between "A" and "B" is not sufficient to suggest either was a "difference maker". I don't believe those stats alone support an argument that either one was the difference maker on teams that had 331 and 369 yards respectively in total offense. Especially when neither had a TD. Branch's longest reception was 27 yards. He had a very nice game, but I just can not agree that he "made the difference" between winning and losing.

Brady's 23 of 33 with 0 interceptions for a rating of 110.2 was equally good

Heck, the Patriots punting was good all day, long with virtually no returns or touchbacks several times put the Eagles inside the 20. Perhaps the punter should have had more consideration of his "value" to the win.

In reality, as others mentioned the difference in turnovers was probably as much the "difference maker" as anything.

MVP awards should be "MMP" awards for "Most Memorable Player," not "Most Valuable".

[MadtownPacker]

Have you forgotten the sideline silliness that went on between Owens and McNabb?

I always laugh when I see this replayed. THIS is why the eagles lost in the SB. Not cuz of owens, cuz of mamaboy mcnabb! His throwing a tantrum on the sidelines had to bring the team down. I recall they got whupped up that game.

At the end of the SB mcnabb had a chance to drive down the field, win the game and make his name in history (not to mention that the 28-24 score would have won me the SB pool) but instead fell flat on his face with the most pathetic late game drive I have ever seen.

owens just needs a QB that is larger then life, someone like .. Brett Favre!!

[woodbuck27]

"To me, it defies logic to suggest that receiver "A" made the difference in the game by catching 11 passes for 130 yards when an opposing receiver "B" caught 9 passes for 120 yards. The difference between "A" and "B" is not sufficient to suggest either was a "difference maker"." shamrockfan

Your saying shamrockfan that A (almost ='s) B . . . therefore they cancel one another or more or less. That is a bogus argument and thus 'the circle jerk argument' response.

Each of these WR's, Branch and T.O. contributed alot to their respective teams hopes for a win, with great individual performances. To discount their respective contributions, by stateing, that one almost matched the other in performance, and then just forget those performances, as in ,they were not an impact on the results, is bogus in this discussion.

It doesn't compute.

I am not arguing with you shamrockfan. I rather disagree with your view. Is that OK with you?

Both Branch and Terrell Owens, made a huge contribution to their teams efforts during that Super Bowl game. They were difference makers towards a possible victory for either side.The difference in the score was a mere 3 points. Therefore 'the Pat's victory' weighed in Branch's favor, and he got the recognition he deserved. Game MVP. He was again, a difference maker to get that recognition

You can put whatever twist on it, that suits your need to have your view accepted, as you see fit. Whatever suits your needs shamrockfan. You don't have to fly off all indignant, because I disagree with you.

Lighten up PLEASE.

Terrell Owens was also very strong for the Eagles and just having him in that game made it close. As you recall, he was doubtful right up to a day or so before the game, and he gave it all he had and played outstanding. His presence and performance, especially considering his condition of not being 100%, made that game as close as it was. He was a difference maker.

Branch 's performance was bigger in my eyes, as his team won.

Incidently Dan Ross also had 11 receptions for Cincinnati in Super Bowl XVI against the 49ers. San Fran 26 - Cincinnati 21.

Jerry Rice had 11 receptions in Super Bowl XXIII. San Fran 20 - Cin. 16.

[woodbuck27]

If it were the Holmgren years, I'd have pushed for TO on the team. But right now, I think we need team chemistry and lockerroom optimism more than we need great skill players.

I love Favre, and I think he's an ageless wonder at his position, but I don't know how much he wants to be the leader and Chief Image Rehabber in Green Bay's lockerroom yet again. I honestly think the seasons from Rhodes-present and pressure from being The Man for so long have worn down his desire to do more than do his job and have fun with his teammates.

We did a real good job with Andre Rison in our Super Bowl season. I remember sitting in a dorm room with some Cowboy fans, saying, "Pick up Rison? That would be a deal with the devil right there." And I remember, if for a little while, that Bad Moon looked like he was having fun on the field, including the first touchdown in the Superdome. Shoot, he went from no team risking a contract on him to getting a (I can't remember the terms) 3-year deal with the Chiefs afterward.

But that atmosphere was so different. Brett was an upbeat party guy, and everyone was along for the ride. Since then, we've seen the nagging toll of Chmura, Winters, (proud Baylor Bear) Santana Dotson, Reggie, LeRoy Butler, Freeman, McKenzie, Cletidus, Big Gilbert, and Javon's exits from the team. Rhodes turned our team into Animal House, and Sherman's era polarized people's view of the offense (and by extension, Brett) as the only thing that mattered.

We needed to bring back team unity and a happy lockerroom. What I wanted most, and what I was really impressed by with our draft, is that we picked up wide-eyed, enthusiastic players who think they can win, and who like the organization, especially on defense. For that reason, I was at peace with our decisions to let Javon go and sign A.J. Hawk over the freakish Verron Davis.

I honestly like TO, and it breaks my heart that someone as talented as he is has such a low opinion of his own worth. He can't stand the thought of not being good enough, he fears that people he cares about will abandon him, and he surrounds himself with a chief enabler (next question) who tells him that nobody respects, understands, or appreciates him. There's not enough money, receptions, touchdowns, wins, record celebrations, or public statements of support that can fill the hole in his heart.

If it were another time in Packer history, I'd say we could risk TO, but since Donnovan McNabb, Blessed With The Patience of Job, was unable to keep him co-existing with the team, I don't see how Brett could do that singlehandedly. I don't think our team or staff is established enough to handle that, and I don't think the town would much like everything TO would say about it when his low self-esteem started acting up again.

Maybe with a new environment, new friends, and a new coach, he'll work out, but I don't want to risk it here.

I appreciate your view in this post and welcome to OUR forum NewsBruin.

GO Packers!

[Patler]

Why all the personal attacks Woodbuck? The only one that is indignant is you. I have not resorted to name calling as you have. I have only offered opinions that are contrary to yours. Is that OK with you, or am I compelled to agree with you???? I offered to not debate with you simply because you seem to find my reponses offensive for some reason, even though I have attacked only your argument and your reasoning on this particular subjuect, not you or your opinions generally, as you have with me. But whatever makes you feel in control, I guess. On to the discussion:

When similar performances result in a win for won and a loss for the other, I would suggest that performances from those positions are not "difference making" If they were the critical factors, why did the one lose?

I think a WR can be a difference maker, but not that often. To me it is a game in which he makes outstanding catches, outstanding runs after the catch, or otherwise performs unexpectedly with a bunch of TDs, getting open deep, etc. Its a game when he is an extraordinarily large part of the offense. Branch's 130 yards was not that in the Super Bowl. Merely catching a relatively large number of throws (for relatively unimpressive yardage in this instance) is not that impressive. Sometimes a QB simply locks onto a receiver because of certain matchups or patterns that are unususally productive in a particular game. I don't recall Branch doing anything especially impressive other than catching 11 balls that were thrown to him.

Look at Sterling Sharpe'e career for example. He was not a great receiver simply because he caught so many passes, after all many of his receptions were the very short patterns barely off the line of scrimmage that will be open all the time. If the QB throws it and he can catch, he will have a lot of receptions. Not an impressive thing. Sharpe was a great receiver because of what he did after those receptions. He abused DBs with his runs after the catch by both evading them and overpowering them. He also managed to get deep a lot, because DBs had to respect the short patterns with him. If they played too far off, he turned short receptions into very long gains. Because of that respect by the DBs, he could get past them and get open down field even though he was not particularly fast. For several years, Sharpe was the Packer offense.

[Partial]

I fear I did a bad job of asking my question. I'll try again.

When is the last time the signing of a big name free agent wide receiver put the team over the top and made them super bowl contenders?

Well, the Ravens, Eagles, and Cowboys were all supposed to be put over the top when TO arrived. Though he wasn't a free agent, Steve Smith took an average team and made them a contender returning from surgery on his leg. There are definitely more players, but its unfair to say that they have to come from A. Free Agency, and B. Have to put a team over the top.

TO is a difference maker. Barry Sanders was a difference maker. Brett Favre is a difference maker. It doesn't matter what position a difference maker plays, just so long as you have them. No doubt TO would have made the offense very, very good. He would have made DD one of the best #2 in the league, and we would have had a ton of ability to stretch the field, as well as go with the McCarthy WCO since TO has the size and speed desired. No doubt he is a valuable asset, but to me there is also little doubt that it is just not worth it. He's a pain in the ass that will tear your team apart after a year in the spotlight.

[Zool]

Cmon....This guy made the catch in 99 and you want him around? I will forever hate T.O. for that reason alone.

Oh and he's a grade A jackass. Doing situps in his front yard so the press can film him? He definately got weened from his mommy too early.

[Partial]

Cmon....This guy made the catch in 99 and you want him around? I will forever hate T.O. for that reason alone.

Oh and he's a grade A jackass. Doing situps in his front yard so the press can film him? He definately got weened from his mommy too early.

Anyone ever consider that he's on roids and thats why he's
A. such a physical specimen
B. recovers so fast from severe injury
C. such a jackass

[jack's smirking revenge]

What's one more headcase in G.B.? Seems like we have to deal with one each year. McKenzie and Walker come to mind. Seemed like great, level-headed players. Attitude turned on a dime when it came to cash. 90% of NFL players are egotistical, but can you blame them? The NFL is ENTERTAINMENT. They are entertainers. T.O. is a soap-opera character, just like Brett Favre. Yes, I said them in the same sentence. I'm not comparing the two, but they are similar in how the media flocks to them for a story or for a soundbyte.

I think chemistry is important. Right now, the Packers have very little with all of the new faces in the mix. T.O. could've come in and played his heart out and showed that he's a leader. Would he have adversely affected chemistry? Very possible. He's got a track record of it. But he's also got a track record of being one of the best WRs in the game in recent years.

What I've read has said Dallas will be one of the teams to beat in the NFC in 2006--primarily because of the acquisition of T.O. His attitude and talent are both undeniable.

The bottom line is that the point is somewhat moot: there's NO WAY he would've played in G.B., regardless of the fat cash that could've been offered. G.B. is too small for T.O.--from marketing and social perspectives. His endorsement deals would be limited if he decided to go to (currently) one of the worst teams in the league in one of the smallest markets in the NFL.

tyler

[cpk1994]

[quote="Partial"]

I fear I did a bad job of asking my question. I'll try again.

TO is a difference maker. Barry Sanders was a difference maker. Brett Favre is a difference maker.

And yet, only one of the three has a ring.

[cpk1994]

San Fran 20 - Cin. 16.[/b]

I would say John Talyor a differnce maker in that game as he caught the game winner.

[cpk1994]

OF course, these same experts picked the VIKINGS to win the NFC North last year after they spent all that money on defense. The "experts" mean nothing.

[woodbuck27]

The bottom line is that the point is somewhat moot: there's NO WAY he would've played in G.B., regardless of the fat cash that could've been offered. G.B. is too small for T.O.--from marketing and social perspectives. His endorsement deals would be limited if he decided to go to (currently) one of the worst teams in the league in one of the smallest markets in the NFL.

tyler

Concentrating on the original question.

My thought here tyler is that Favre to T.O - TOUCHDOWN - would have been very familiar to us in 2006 and maybe beyond this season.

T.O. playing with Brett certainly wouldn't translate to suffering for us on the scoreboard, as he would naturally have been conceded the #1 WR spot.Donald Driver would have still seen plenty of work. Then a player like Greg Jennings develops naturally in 2-3 seasons but many are saying he'll be OUR #2 WR.That is a heavy load to place on the head of any Rookie WR in the NFL.It takes time to develop and if it's Jennings at #2 WR what does that really say of the rest that Ted Thompson has available? Now in TT's favor I weigh in with the Javon Walker slap in the face fiasco but we didn't count on him in 2006 anyway coming off his leg injury.

These two players Favre and Owens, would both benefit from the other, raising their commercial status and commercial shoots and promo's are set up in the off season anyway in whatever location. Favre was just in Chicago for such a venture and he has been busy all off season making the BIG bucks.

You certainly don't see Favre suffer in the area of money from commerrcials as I believe he made about $15 million last year (near the top for all NFL players) and his popularity is on the rise now, despite the much talked about 29 picks. Weren't those 29 picks last year? Wern't T.O.'s problems in the past. If TT had of gone out and got him wouldn't we be behind T.O.?

It was an intriguing possibility that flew past us but T.O. and the Green Bay Packers was simply - my wish. It was Brett Favre's also.

I feel that we flat out missed the boat here,and to me that is sad given OUR present concerns at the WR position.I won't go into TT's dedication to winning in 2006 as it's obvious to me in his off season moves he wasn't interested in points up on the board. Maybe he felt Javon Walker would be OK and Green and Najeh back good and strong from injuries all, but that isn't generally going to happen.

We needed T.O.