Favre was hurt

[cpk1994]

My point was........no one with the organization ever said NO...........at least not till the end.

Holmgren was the only one who had the stones to tell Favre NO.

[MJZiggy]

I thought McCarthy did too...it was the gap in between that is at issue.

[Partial]

The fact that Brett is a legend in Green Bay and around hickville USA is undeniable but the combination of intellectual honesty and intellectual prowess of those who worship. . . . well, there is none. Like most legends, it's a bunch of overblown, overrated hype that Favre himself has never lived up to except in the dreamy, star struck eyes of the willing believers. These believers lack of reasoning can stem from a variety of reasons, many of which are personal and many based in tardation.

I worry about you if you believe 1/2 of what you write. Favre is a bunch of overblown, overrated hype? lol Why don't you wait to post that shit when another QB comes in and does what he did for the Packer organization. And making references of "tardation" really shows your maturity.

How is it not overblown hype? Good god every single commentator on his games would excuse any mistake he made using the tired "he was trying to make a play" excuse. It was that shit that led in part to Favre believeing he could have what ever he wanted when he wanted it and that he was above everyone else. Find me one example of a commentator during a game that actuially said "You know that weas a bonehead decision by Favre". Find me one. You won't becuade they were too busy slobbering all over him and kissing his ass. JH is right to a point. The media has made Favre out to be something he is not. It's disgusting.

What are you talking about? I can think of countless times where announcers state Favre made a bad play. You're delusional. You're up their with JH. I don't have clips of NFL games on my computer, but listen to the games and you'll hear it happen. 2005 versus Cinncinatti rings a bell.

As for the rest, thats making a hearty assumption that Favre "believes" that crap. You know what happens when you assume.

[Partial]

My point was........no one with the organization ever said NO...........at least not till the end.

Holmgren was the only one who had the stones to tell Favre NO.

Again, you're making blind speculation. Do you work for the Packers? Are you in the locker room? You truly say some stupid stuff.

I will say this once line, and it is an undeniable fact that should silence all the critics.

Brett Favre has NEVER let a team go on a 5 game losing streak during his Packer career. Especially on a team this talented. 2002 was decimated by injuries just as bad as this year if not worse, and we still ended up doing fine.

[packinpatland]

Here's one FOR Favre:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3804255&sportCat=nfl

Favre-Rodgers saga didn't have to end this way
By Gene Wojciechowski
ESPN.com

Updated: January 1, 2009, 3:46 PM ET

"Get ready to print your retraction," read one.

"I'll bet you don't remember me," began another. "I'm the guy who said, 'I think you're wrong about Brett Favre. I think he's washed up."'

And "[Aaron] Rodgers is, right now, much, much better than Favre -- not a little, a whole lot better."

Turns out some Green Bay Packers fans have long memories, except when it comes to the Packers' 6-10 record this season. They also have blind spots; we all do. I have one for Favre and will never apologize for it. I also have one for the Packers. It's my favorite pro team, favorite stadium, favorite helmet logo, favorite game-day experience. I grew up on that franchise.

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man. If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

I wrote before the season's start that Packers management botched the entire Favre situation. I stand by that. Favre changed his mind about retirement, but the Packers just as clumsily changed their minds about Favre.

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did, but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road. You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

Turns out Favre played hurt, too. No surprise there. But a now-diagnosed torn biceps tendon affected his arm strength down the stretch.

His critics say he looked old. Duh -- he's 39. But isn't there the possibility that he simply looked injured? Big difference.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's. Rodgers had more passing yards, more touchdowns, fewer interceptions, more rushing yards and a higher passer rating -- so he's clearly the better quarterback.

But do wins count for anything? Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six. They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

Do divisions count for anything? Favre's Jets played in an AFC East in which two teams finished with 11 wins and the worst team finished with seven. Compare that to the mediocre NFC North, home of only one double-digit-win team (the Minnesota Vikings) and the 0-16 Detroit Lions. One-third of the Packers' victories came against the losingest team in the history of the NFL.

Do circumstances count for anything? Favre didn't have the benefit of a full training camp or a full playbook. Everything was a work in progress with the Jets -- and stayed that way. (And yes, I know Chad Pennington made a similar transition from the Jets to the Miami Dolphins and thrived. It was a remarkable season for him. Pennington deserves much of the credit, but it helped that he was in Jets/Dolphins camp for the entire time. And it's clear now that Tony Sparano and his Miami staff were more nimble and better prepared for the transition than the Jets' Eric Mangini and his staff.)

Rodgers had the pressure of replacing Favre, but he also had an entire offseason and training camp to prepare for it. And there can't be any debate that the Packers' skill players, especially at wide receiver, were better than the Jets'.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers. But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts. In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

The simple truth is we'll never know if the Packers would have been better or worse with Favre this season. That's because it was never an option.

All we know for sure is that the inconsistent and underachieving Packers moved on. Did they move forward? I don't know -- is 6-10 moving forward after playing in an NFC Championship Game with Favre a season earlier?

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

So no retractions. Favre did what he could. So did Rodgers. As it turns out, neither was enough.

Gene Wojciechowski is the senior national columnist for ESPN.com. You can contact him at gene.wojciechowski@espn3.com.

[Pacopete4]

Here's one FOR Favre:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3804255&sportCat=nfl

Favre-Rodgers saga didn't have to end this way
By Gene Wojciechowski
ESPN.com

Updated: January 1, 2009, 3:46 PM ET

"Get ready to print your retraction," read one.

"I'll bet you don't remember me," began another. "I'm the guy who said, 'I think you're wrong about Brett Favre. I think he's washed up."'

And "[Aaron] Rodgers is, right now, much, much better than Favre -- not a little, a whole lot better."

Turns out some Green Bay Packers fans have long memories, except when it comes to the Packers' 6-10 record this season. They also have blind spots; we all do. I have one for Favre and will never apologize for it. I also have one for the Packers. It's my favorite pro team, favorite stadium, favorite helmet logo, favorite game-day experience. I grew up on that franchise.

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man. If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

I wrote before the season's start that Packers management botched the entire Favre situation. I stand by that. Favre changed his mind about retirement, but the Packers just as clumsily changed their minds about Favre.

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did, but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road. You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

Turns out Favre played hurt, too. No surprise there. But a now-diagnosed torn biceps tendon affected his arm strength down the stretch.

His critics say he looked old. Duh -- he's 39. But isn't there the possibility that he simply looked injured? Big difference.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's. Rodgers had more passing yards, more touchdowns, fewer interceptions, more rushing yards and a higher passer rating -- so he's clearly the better quarterback.

But do wins count for anything? Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six. They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

Do divisions count for anything? Favre's Jets played in an AFC East in which two teams finished with 11 wins and the worst team finished with seven. Compare that to the mediocre NFC North, home of only one double-digit-win team (the Minnesota Vikings) and the 0-16 Detroit Lions. One-third of the Packers' victories came against the losingest team in the history of the NFL.

Do circumstances count for anything? Favre didn't have the benefit of a full training camp or a full playbook. Everything was a work in progress with the Jets -- and stayed that way. (And yes, I know Chad Pennington made a similar transition from the Jets to the Miami Dolphins and thrived. It was a remarkable season for him. Pennington deserves much of the credit, but it helped that he was in Jets/Dolphins camp for the entire time. And it's clear now that Tony Sparano and his Miami staff were more nimble and better prepared for the transition than the Jets' Eric Mangini and his staff.)

Rodgers had the pressure of replacing Favre, but he also had an entire offseason and training camp to prepare for it. And there can't be any debate that the Packers' skill players, especially at wide receiver, were better than the Jets'.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers. But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts. In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

The simple truth is we'll never know if the Packers would have been better or worse with Favre this season. That's because it was never an option.

All we know for sure is that the inconsistent and underachieving Packers moved on. Did they move forward? I don't know -- is 6-10 moving forward after playing in an NFC Championship Game with Favre a season earlier?

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

So no retractions. Favre did what he could. So did Rodgers. As it turns out, neither was enough.

Gene Wojciechowski is the senior national columnist for ESPN.com. You can contact him at gene.wojciechowski@espn3.com.

probably the best written article that I've seen in this whole saga of shenanigans..

[Bretsky]

good article PIP

[denverYooper]

But do wins count for anything? Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six. They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

The Packers beat 2 playoff-bound teams.

[GrnBay007]

Good article.

and something I've been trying to express...

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

[b bulldog]

The reason for that is that some people revel in making Brett to be more than he is. Brett is a great QB that only won one SB. Very exciting player, a good face for the NFL for a while but also a guy that would kill his team with his terrible throws.

[Bretsky]

Good article.

and something I've been trying to express...

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

YOU WERE ?

Chicks...........they think we can read their minds

[packinpatland]

No.........we don't. But we do reserve the right to bitch about it when you can't.

[cpk1994]

The fact that Brett is a legend in Green Bay and around hickville USA is undeniable but the combination of intellectual honesty and intellectual prowess of those who worship. . . . well, there is none. Like most legends, it's a bunch of overblown, overrated hype that Favre himself has never lived up to except in the dreamy, star struck eyes of the willing believers. These believers lack of reasoning can stem from a variety of reasons, many of which are personal and many based in tardation.

I worry about you if you believe 1/2 of what you write. Favre is a bunch of overblown, overrated hype? lol Why don't you wait to post that shit when another QB comes in and does what he did for the Packer organization. And making references of "tardation" really shows your maturity.

How is it not overblown hype? Good god every single commentator on his games would excuse any mistake he made using the tired "he was trying to make a play" excuse. It was that shit that led in part to Favre believeing he could have what ever he wanted when he wanted it and that he was above everyone else. Find me one example of a commentator during a game that actuially said "You know that weas a bonehead decision by Favre". Find me one. You won't becuade they were too busy slobbering all over him and kissing his ass. JH is right to a point. The media has made Favre out to be something he is not. It's disgusting.

What are you talking about? I can think of countless times where announcers state Favre made a bad play. You're delusional. You're up their with JH. I don't have clips of NFL games on my computer, but listen to the games and you'll hear it happen. 2005 versus Cinncinatti rings a bell.

As for the rest, thats making a hearty assumption that Favre "believes" that crap. You know what happens when you assume.

YOu bring up 2005 at Cincinatti to make your argument? You just provided a prime example of what I said. After he threw that illegal forward pass, the announcers went on and on and on about how great it was that hw was trying to make a play and that he was a warrior and what heart, convinently ignoring the fact that every time the D gave him the ball back, Favre threw it right fucking back. I got so fed up with the announcers sucking Favre's dick(as they have done every game for 18 years) all game long that I nearly broke my TV. Christ, even Wayne Larrivee would apologize ahead of time before making a half hearted attempt to criticize Favre. It was pure bullshit that day. Your delusional if you think announcers never use the phrase "he was just trying to make a play" Hell, Favre himself and Sherman used that same line many times to excuse mistakes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

What way does the author expect it to end? FAvre acted like a total dick last summer, its rather amazing that so many Packer fans have forgiven him. Check out packerrats for the taunting posts from Favre supporters after the Tennessee game when Favre was riding high. Why would packer fans wish Favre well when it leads to more of that crap?

I see the Thompson haters have-checked in with a thumbs up for this fine article. Pacopete, 007, Bretsky, PackinPatland. The usual rogue's gallery. Where are Partial, Mobb and gex?

[Bretsky]

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

What way does the author expect it to end? FAvre acted like a total dick last summer, its rather amazing that so many Packer fans have forgiven him. Check out packerrats for the taunting posts from Favre supporters after the Tennessee game when Favre was riding high. Why would packer fans wish Favre well when it leads to more of that crap?

I see the Thompson haters have-checked in with a thumbs up for this fine article. Pacopete, 007, Bretsky, PackinPatland. The usual rogue's gallery. Where are Partial, Mobb and gex?

I'm a Thompson hater ?

Gosh I use to think you were on top of things