Alternative History - The bears game

[Tyrone Bigguns]

One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. You know, what would things look like if the Nazi's had won, etc.

With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bert surely woulda winged up a few prayers that woulda been intercepted, devasting ints at the wrong time. The Bear's game required a game manager, someone patient enough to wait for the opportunity to strike...and that isn't Bert.

Bears 21-10.

[Jimx29]

step away from the hooka


Pack 38
cubs 13

[packerbacker1234]

Re: Alternative History - The bears game

One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. You know, what would things look like if the Nazi's had won, etc.

With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bert surely woulda winged up a few prayers that woulda been intercepted, devasting ints at the wrong time. The Bear's game required a game manager, someone patient enough to wait for the opportunity to strike...and that isn't Bert.

Bears 21-10.

Or... if bert starts... we actually score points on offense.

I mean, Rodger's didn't turn it over, but we punted... a lot.

I don't think bert makes a difference honestly. Rodgers did nothing save one play at the end. How many times have we seen bert make that same play? Plenty enough to warrant confidence that bert would of made the same play.

Regardless, hindsight being 20-20, the pack wins regardless.

(I also laugh at needing a game manager. Brett was completely a game manager this weekend with Minnesota, meanwhile Rodgers never got it going at all)

[Partial]

Bert can't fix a bad OL but he was much better pocket presence and arm on short passes.

27 - 15

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And, the truly blind have revealed themselves.

[Freak Out]

We lose that game with old #4 behind center.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: Alternative History - The bears game

One of the most fun genres of literature is the alternative history. You know, what would things look like if the Nazi's had won, etc.

With that in mind, how do most see the Bear's game if Bert had been starting for us.

I can't even imagine us winning that game. Bert surely woulda winged up a few prayers that woulda been intercepted, devasting ints at the wrong time. The Bear's game required a game manager, someone patient enough to wait for the opportunity to strike...and that isn't Bert.

Bears 21-10.

Or... if bert starts... we actually score points on offense.

I mean, Rodger's didn't turn it over, but we punted... a lot.

I don't think bert makes a difference honestly. Rodgers did nothing save one play at the end. How many times have we seen bert make that same play? Plenty enough to warrant confidence that bert would of made the same play.

Regardless, hindsight being 20-20, the pack wins regardless.

(I also laugh at needing a game manager. Brett was completely a game manager this weekend with Minnesota, meanwhile Rodgers never got it going at all)

I was waiting for someone who would be ridiculous and bring up the Vikes game...hmm, did arod have a rb with 180 yards.

Yeah, i'm sure a running game didn't affect it.

[Fritz]

Okay, Ty, first of all, enough with the "Bert" crap. He gets disrespected enough already.

But to answer your question:

If Brent Favre had started for the Pack, the game would have turned out exactly the same in terms of score. He might've thrown a pick here or there instead of an incomplete, but in the end, it would've been the same game.

Why?

Well, because Brent's become the very thing you said this game needed from the QB - a game manager. He's so muted and mundane up there in Minnesota that you wouldn't even know it's him except for that #4 and the gray buzz cut.

[Cleft Crusty]

This thread seems like a pointless exercise. Favre is two years out from his last decent season, and is all beat up. It will be hard to compare the two QBs because they will be asked to do very different things this year. Still, Crusty predicts Favre will wear down sooner than later and anyone who really believes that having Favre under center for the Packers this year would be better than Rodgers will be eating their words.

[red]

bert wouldn't have helped barbre. in fact bert probably would have been on the ground more times

and bert still would have had the dropped passes

i was a huge bert fan when he was a parker, but i now have full faith in rodgers. i was pissed very much when the change was made, but now i see it as the right more. 100% confident in that

i also think the vikings would be a better team if a-rod was their qb this year

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Okay, Ty, first of all, enough with the "Bert" crap. He gets disrespected enough already.

But to answer your question:

If Brent Favre had started for the Pack, the game would have turned out exactly the same in terms of score. He might've thrown a pick here or there instead of an incomplete, but in the end, it would've been the same game.

Why?

Well, because Brent's become the very thing you said this game needed from the QB - a game manager. He's so muted and mundane up there in Minnesota that you wouldn't even know it's him except for that #4 and the gray buzz cut.

Fritz,

He is with the vikes..but, he knows that coming in. The packers aren't that type of team...as displayed in the preseason. this is a wide open offense.

this game required something he never has shown...patience. Adjustment to game managing within a game.

good ol brent couldn't do that.

[Fritz]

He's a changed man, Ty, Adrian Peterson or not. I honestly wonder if he sits in front of his locker sometimes now wondering what he came back for. He really seems kinda lost, almost. He's playing, but he's just managing things, and despite his words about having fun, it don't look to me like he's having fun.

So I do think he'd have somberly managed the game. I also think that Rodgers has surpassed him as a QB. Part of the reason is that Favre seems to have lost the very thing people gushed about - his vivacity, his boyish passion, his creativity.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

He's a changed man, Ty, Adrian Peterson or not. I honestly wonder if he sits in front of his locker sometimes now wondering what he came back for. He really seems kinda lost, almost. He's playing, but he's just managing things, and despite his words about having fun, it don't look to me like he's having fun.

So I do think he'd have somberly managed the game. I also think that Rodgers has surpassed him as a QB. Part of the reason is that Favre seems to have lost the very thing people gushed about - his vivacity, his boyish passion, his creativity.

Prove that he has changed. Recent history with the Jets says otherwise.

Fun: that may be true, but it isn't germane to the point.

Like i said, in a close game Bert woulda felt the need to win it himself..and made several bad plays.

But, disregarding that....arod was running for his life...bert couldn't have escaped as well as arod.

I'm looking forward to a close vikings game..maybe with ravens..then we'll see what happens.

[cheesner]

Not too much difference. I think that Bratt would have probably tossed a pick or two; he also maybe hits one of those missed bombs and it is a wash and the Packers still win. The main problems, the OL blocking and the dropped passes, would have probably been the same.

I would definitely go with my chances with AR rather than Bratt.

Fritz - your first post - very funny!

[Scott Campbell]

With 4 picks, I thought Bert was playing for the Bears.