Bert's interview

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But you're right, I don't even know why any of us keep this shit going, to be honest. Every argument is the same. You could write a computer program to do it for us.

It goes from Ted Thompson being the bad guy, to okay the Packers made the right choice but why shouldn't Brett be allowed to play, to the Packers were irrelevant before he got there, to well they went 6-10 last year.

It's all really sickening and inane. And I have no idea why I choose to remain a part of it.

Probably the same reason, if you are old enough, that you watched and suffered with the pack for 20 years or so until Wolf and Holmgren turned things around.

P.S. Anybody who thinks Bert made GB relevant is crazy. One thing is for sure, Wolf found QBs, and while we might not have won a SB, we woulda been relevant.

[Gunakor]

But you're right, I don't even know why any of us keep this shit going, to be honest. Every argument is the same. You could write a computer program to do it for us.

It goes from Ted Thompson being the bad guy, to okay the Packers made the right choice but why shouldn't Brett be allowed to play, to the Packers were irrelevant before he got there, to well they went 6-10 last year.

It's all really sickening and inane. And I have no idea why I choose to remain a part of it.

Probably the same reason, if you are old enough, that you watched and suffered with the pack for 20 years or so until Wolf and Holmgren turned things around.

P.S. Anybody who thinks Bert made GB relevant is crazy. One thing is for sure, Wolf found QBs, and while we might not have won a SB, we woulda been relevant.

Brett had a huge hand in making GB relevant again. You can't justly take that away from him.

I'm still wondering why that's at all relevant to this particular season or this particular game, though.

[PlantPage55]

I'm still wondering why that's at all relevant to this particular season or this particular game, though.

I think that everything that is Brett Favre is on the table for this game. Is that the right thing? Maybe not. But you know damn well that whoever wins this game, whoever is on that side of the Brett debate is going to use that as a HUGE indicator that they were right. That's not right, but that's the way it's going to be.

I'm going to need a few stiff drinks before I look at the JSO comment section after the game, if we were to lose. A lot of conclusions are going to be made Monday night.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But you're right, I don't even know why any of us keep this shit going, to be honest. Every argument is the same. You could write a computer program to do it for us.

It goes from Ted Thompson being the bad guy, to okay the Packers made the right choice but why shouldn't Brett be allowed to play, to the Packers were irrelevant before he got there, to well they went 6-10 last year.

It's all really sickening and inane. And I have no idea why I choose to remain a part of it.

Probably the same reason, if you are old enough, that you watched and suffered with the pack for 20 years or so until Wolf and Holmgren turned things around.

P.S. Anybody who thinks Bert made GB relevant is crazy. One thing is for sure, Wolf found QBs , and while we might not have won a SB, we woulda been relevant.

Brett had a huge hand in making GB relevant again. You can't justly take that away from him.

I'm still wondering why that's at all relevant to this particular season or this particular game, though.

Relevance. Do you think wolf and holmgren woulda made us relevant without Favre?

I say yes. We drafted brunell in 93 and he woulda been a very good qb for us and we woulda been relevant. Wolf also found Detmer in 92, not great, but certainly good enough, with the type of defense we put together to make us relevant. He later found Hasselbeck and Brooks.

I'm 100% confident that we woulda been relevant..and that if we had started Brunell....Wolf woulda found another backup QB that was good like Brunell.

I'm not taking away Favre's accomplishment...cause he did it on the field. But, by no means am i buying he made us relevant. I saw from Day 1 that Holmgren was a dang good coach...and that win or lose...we were gonna be respected and relevant.

[Gunakor]

I'm still wondering why that's at all relevant to this particular season or this particular game, though.

I think that everything that is Brett Favre is on the table for this game. Is that the right thing? Maybe not. But you know damn well that whoever wins this game, whoever is on that side of the Brett debate is going to use that as a HUGE indicator that they were right. That's not right, but that's the way it's going to be.

I'm going to need a few stiff drinks before I look at the JSO comment section after the game, if we were to lose. A lot of conclusions are going to be made Monday night.

The thing is though that Green Bay could lose this game and the decision to move on could still be the right one. As I said in another thread, lets wait 5 years and see if Favre could lead the Vikings or anyone else to victory over Rodgers and the Pack. The question of whether it was right to move on or not will still be in the process of being answered well after Favre does retire.

I agree that a lot of conclusions will be made whether we win or lose, but the majority of those conclusions will likely still end up being wrong. Because it's not the conclusion yet. Not by a long shot.

[Gunakor]

Relevance. Do you think wolf and holmgren woulda made us relevant without Favre?

I say yes. We drafted brunell in 93 and he woulda been a very good qb for us and we woulda been relevant. Wolf also found Detmer in 92, not great, but certainly good enough, with the type of defense we put together to make us relevant. He later found Hasselbeck and Brooks.

I'm 100% confident that we woulda been relevant..and that if we had started Brunell....Wolf woulda found another backup QB that was good like Brunell.

I'm not taking away Favre's accomplishment...cause he did it on the field. But, by no means am i buying he made us relevant. I saw from Day 1 that Holmgren was a dang good coach...and that win or lose...we were gonna be respected and relevant.

Favre didn't do it alone. But he had a huge hand in the resurgence of this franchise, and you can't say for certain whether another QB would have done the same. White, Butler, Robinson, Chumura, Sharpe, Bag 'O Donuts... They all had a part in it. Favre too. You can't credit Wolf and Holmgren and not give credit to the players.

But none of that matters come Monday night. We got who we got and that's who we're gonna win with. That's it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Relevance. Do you think wolf and holmgren woulda made us relevant without Favre?

I say yes. We drafted brunell in 93 and he woulda been a very good qb for us and we woulda been relevant. Wolf also found Detmer in 92, not great, but certainly good enough, with the type of defense we put together to make us relevant. He later found Hasselbeck and Brooks.

I'm 100% confident that we woulda been relevant..and that if we had started Brunell....Wolf woulda found another backup QB that was good like Brunell.

I'm not taking away Favre's accomplishment...cause he did it on the field. But, by no means am i buying he made us relevant. I saw from Day 1 that Holmgren was a dang good coach...and that win or lose...we were gonna be respected and relevant.

Favre didn't do it alone. But he had a huge hand in the resurgence of this franchise, and you can't say for certain whether another QB would have done the same. White, Butler, Robinson, Chumura, Sharpe, Bag 'O Donuts... They all had a part in it. Favre too. You can't credit Wolf and Holmgren and not give credit to the players.

But none of that matters come Monday night. We got who we got and that's who we're gonna win with. That's it.

Of course, as i said, he did it on the field. But, the question is relevance. Maybe i'm unclear. To me, relevance means we are in the discussion of being in the playoffs.

I think, based on Brunell's career that we can say he woulda had us in or around the playoffs. Remember, we had some awesome defenses.

Now, i can't and won't say he woulda led us to the SB, but yes, relevance.

The org became relevant with the hiring of Holmgren and Wolf..and, maybe you are young...i don't know...but, even in favre's early years there was sizable discussion on whether he could get it done or was the right guy. Many openly advocated for the backup.

to put it another way...arod can be great, but if TT and MM fuck up....the pack ain't gonna be relevant.

Monday nite: Should be great. course, let's not get to high or to low...we face the vikes again, but in lambeau. there really should be no pressure on us..vikes at home, 3-0, favored, 1 player from being a SB contender, etc.

[SnakeLH2006]

Relevance. Do you think wolf and holmgren woulda made us relevant without Favre?

I say yes. We drafted brunell in 93 and he woulda been a very good qb for us and we woulda been relevant. Wolf also found Detmer in 92, not great, but certainly good enough, with the type of defense we put together to make us relevant. He later found Hasselbeck and Brooks.

I'm 100% confident that we woulda been relevant..and that if we had started Brunell....Wolf woulda found another backup QB that was good like Brunell.

I'm not taking away Favre's accomplishment...cause he did it on the field. But, by no means am i buying he made us relevant. I saw from Day 1 that Holmgren was a dang good coach...and that win or lose...we were gonna be respected and relevant.

Favre didn't do it alone. But he had a huge hand in the resurgence of this franchise, and you can't say for certain whether another QB would have done the same. White, Butler, Robinson, Chumura, Sharpe, Bag 'O Donuts... They all had a part in it. Favre too. You can't credit Wolf and Holmgren and not give credit to the players.

But none of that matters come Monday night. We got who we got and that's who we're gonna win with. That's it.

Of course, as i said, he did it on the field. But, the question is relevance. Maybe i'm unclear. To me, relevance means we are in the discussion of being in the playoffs.

I think, based on Brunell's career that we can say he woulda had us in or around the playoffs. Remember, we had some awesome defenses.

Now, i can't and won't say he woulda led us to the SB, but yes, relevance.

The org became relevant with the hiring of Holmgren and Favre..and, maybe you are young...i don't know...but, even in favre's early years there was sizable discussion on whether he could get it done or was the right guy. Many openly advocated for the backup.

to put it another way...arod can be great, but if TT and MM fuck up....the pack ain't gonna be relevant.

Monday nite: Should be great. course, let's not get to high or to low...we face the vikes again, but in lambeau. there really should be no pressure on us..vikes at home, 3-0, favored, 1 player from being a SB contender, etc.

Only a moron would argue with Ty's Brilliance:

http://achievements.schrankmonster.d...nstein%20FAILS.

Snake ain't defending Brett, but hey dude has what 18/19 seasons with a non-losing record? That alone is amazing. Diss/ammend all you want Ty, Brett was/is a HUGE winner.

[Gunakor]

I was screaming at the TV for Brunell back in 1993 also. But the Packers weren't really a relevant team back in 1993. The Packers became relevant again IMO when Favre hit Sharpe in the back of the endzone for a game winning TD in the final minute against the Lions in the 1994 playoffs.

So everyone on that roster, everyone on that coaching staff, everyone in that front office are all responsible for making the Pack relevant again. You can't credit one without crediting the rest. Favre included, because he was there and did his part. Whether someone else could have is irrelevant. Favre did it. Favre gets credit.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gunakor and i aren't arguing, we are discussing.

But, nice of you to stick your nose in where it wasn't needed or asked for.

[SnakeLH2006]

Ty, bring me a corn dog. No really. Sorry, was that out the blue? Shut the fuck up and bring me my corn dog, ho. You serve absolutely no purpose but to fetch some corn dogs. So just do it and shut up.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty, cornhole me. No really. Sorry, was that out the blue? Shit , fuck me and cornhole me, ho.

I think you misdirected this to me, harlan would be more appropriate.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I was screaming at the TV for Brunell back in 1993 also. But the Packers weren't really a relevant team back in 1993. The Packers became relevant again IMO when Favre hit Sharpe in the back of the endzone for a game winning TD in the final minute against the Lions in the 1994 playoffs.

So everyone on that roster, everyone on that coaching staff, everyone in that front office are all responsible for making the Pack relevant again. You can't credit one without crediting the rest. Favre included, because he was there and did his part. Whether someone else could have is irrelevant. Favre did it. Favre gets credit.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway.

Brunell: See, we were different. I always had faith in Bert. I never called for Brunell. But, i understood why some did. I had complete faith that Holmgren would turn him into a great QB...and he did. Like i have said, i was prolly one of the biggest Bert apologists till the first retirement. Man, i loved him....worshipped him. And, still believe if Wolf hadn't effed up in his coaching choice we coulda won more SBs. And, even won the second if not for Wolf's jettisoning of certain players...Jones, Simmons, Rison.

Funny, how things change.

Well, see, we disagree on relevance and who is responsible. For me, 92 were relevant..2nd place. People were talking about us.

I give all credit to the players, but i have to give more to the coaching and GM. Without the GM, there wouldn't be the players, and without a good coach....all the talent doesn't mean shit. For example..in college...Illinois has great recruting classes..and look what they have done with them.

Just as i have to give Bert more credit than Detmer. They all have a part, but some play a bigger part.

Like i said, i can not, nor would i ever take away what Bert did on the field.

My only contention is that a good org makes your team relevant. The niners were relevant for 3 successive QBS...because of good ownership and managment (well, that is another story .

I have no doubt, no one iota that we woulda been a success. Now, again, i won't say we woulda got to the SB or won it...cause that is a different criteria..and that may be one that i would even argue that we couldn't accomplish without Bert (though, prolly not after seeing Dilfer, etc. go), but that is wholly different than relevance.

Anyway, good discussion.

[SnakeLH2006]

Sad.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty, cornhole me. No really. Sorry, was that out the blue? Shit , fuck me and cornhole me, ho.

I think you misdirected this to me, harlan would be more appropriate.

Way to type your own shit in MY quotes HOMO. Me and HH are tight. Way to mistype those things cuz U, TY, have no friends and only serve to fuck shit up post after post on PackerRats. I don't try, but I bet if I did, I could get you kicked off here within the week. You wanna bet, Snake? I really think I could. I like you overall, but if you wanna bet, I bet you can't last a week. Your call.

Are you suggesting that Ty typed shit in your quotes? This is coming from you? Hello, irony.

Dude, you do what ever you do. Nobody can figure out what you are going to do.