Super Bowl win opens flood gates....

[RashanGary]

I agree with much of what you are trying to get across--although I think the manner in which you are saying it is just to get people riled up. I would disagee with this though. It's a team game, but a QB means way more to a team's success then this. I think the whole playoff run is proof of how much a QB means. Rodgers outplayed the opposing QB in all 6 games and he was the biggest difference in probably 5 of those 6 games.

Favre was a great QB. The best regular season QB in history perhaps. His Packers team had one losing season in 16 seasons. That's with great personnel, average personnel, and below average personnel around him. If he had choked in the playoffs a couple times fewer, he'd rightfully have a spot in the games top 5 QBs. Maybe top 3. He didn't though, and that knocks him out of the top 5 for me. Maybe the top 10 once Brady and Manning retire. Manning's career is kind of following Favre's career.

At most though, Harv, a QB can be what? 50% of the offense. That's 25% to OL and 25% to everyone else. I suppose, maybe the reality falls somewhere in that range. So a QB is somewhere between 10%-20% responsible for a team. Maybe 15% is a good number. Either way, it's important, but a solid QB can win the SB when the other 80-90% of the team is excellent. I think solid QB's become great ones in poeples minds when they win SB's on great teams and great ones knocked to solid when they can't win one (Elway before he finally did it). His career easily could have ended with no rings and people call him excellent but not a true great. It's all perception. What's not perception though, is that a QB can only impact the offense and even then, only so much. How exactly you break it down, there is no logical way to put a majority stock in a QB. Maybe more than any other one player, but not majority, not even close. I think 15% would be high, but on a team like this years Packers, it was all on the QB. With a good QB, it wouldn't have to be though.

Bottom line though, the rest of the team is at least 5X more important than the QB. I'll stand by that statement firmly.

[swede]

At most though, Harv, a QB can be what? 50% of the offense. That's 25% to OL and 25% to everyone else. I suppose, maybe the reality falls somewhere in that range. So a QB is somewhere between 10%-20% responsible for a team. Maybe 15% is a good number. Either way, it's important, but a solid QB can win the SB when the other 80-90% of the team is excellent. I think solid QB's become great ones in poeples minds when they win SB's on great teams and great ones knocked to solid when they can't win one (Elway before he finally did it). His career easily could have ended with no rings and people call him excellent but not a true great. It's all perception. What's not perception though, is that a QB can only impact the offense and even then, only so much. How exactly you break it down, there is no logical way to put a majority stock in a QB. Maybe more than any other one player, but not majority, not even close. I think 15% would be high, but on a team like this years Packers, it was all on the QB. With a good QB, it wouldn't have to be though.

Bottom line though, the rest of the team is at least 5X more important than the QB. I'll stand by that statement firmly.

Those are good numbers. I've always liked 15.

[LEWCWA]

I think with better roster building, the Packers could have been very, very successful with Lynn Dickey or with Don Majkowski if he had stayed healthy. If they had not had Favre, they could have been very, very successful under Wolf with Brunnel or with Hasselbeck. Sherman might have had more success with Hasselbeck than he did with Favre, whom he could not manage.

Competent QBs are out there, you just have to find them. The Packers have had at least 7 that would have been good enough with more complete rosters. Is it better to have a better QB? Sure, but a lot of the bad years for the Packers were because of the roster as a whole and not the QB

This is true---I guess maybe the ole standard holds true defense wins championships....GB has won when they had great defenses, maybe QB's are just icing on the cake!

[LEWCWA]

JH, I admire the Favre bashing, but now your just reaching. We are blessed that we followed a very good QB with a great one. Don't cheapen your intellectual argument by saying Favre sucked. He was very good. You need a very good QB to win in the NFL. History has proven him to be an asshat and nothing you say is going to change LEW's mind. For my money (and I'm guessing you agree) I'll take AR anyday over #4. Don't get dragged into this garbage discussion anymore than you already have. Hey, how about them brewers.

Like is said b4, I don't put much stock in the personal stuff. All people are flawed. And I'm not discussing BF over AR, I'm just saying i appreciate both. Thats it really. I have stated in the past GB made the right decision and I stated that during the 6-10 season. I understand BF being bitter, I would be too. Human nature really.

[LEWCWA]

As far as Aaron being cocky during the time leading up to the 2005 draft, he admits that he was. He has said that he was advised to be that one in the interview process. He said it was bad advice, and he should have remained true to himself.

This maybe true. He comes accross as cocky to me today and I have no problem with it. I kind of like it. In all reality, I tell my freshman daughter that she has to have some of that attitude on her softball team. A little cockiness can go a long way!

[channtheman]

Too hard to look at that 'what if' scenario.

If BF wasn't here, does Reggie White come? Without Reggie White, our defense doesn't dominate. Keith Jackson probably can't be convinced to come. You can't take one piece of the puzzle out, and expect the rest to remain in place.

Very good point. In White's book he said Favre was a big reason for why he came to Green Bay. Favre was an amazing competitor, playing through anything because one he wanted to win and two I think he took pride in never missing a start, regardless of what he said about caring about records.

[Patler]

Too hard to look at that 'what if' scenario.

If BF wasn't here, does Reggie White come? Without Reggie White, our defense doesn't dominate. Keith Jackson probably can't be convinced to come. You can't take one piece of the puzzle out, and expect the rest to remain in place.

No, but that's not the point. I think the point really is that the Packers had at least two other QBs during the Favre years in Brunnel and Hasselbeck that might have been "good enough" with a GM that could otherwise assemble pieces around them. Maybe different pieces, but pieces that would fit. Don't forget, if the Packers had not gotten Favre they would have had the first round draft pick that the gave up for him, to use or trade for another piece of the puzzle.

[Patler]

Very good point. In White's book he said Favre was a big reason for why he came to Green Bay.

True, and he also said that God told him to come to Green Bay.
But, as cynics have pointed out in the past, its funny how those two significant factors coincided with the place that offered the most money.

[LEWCWA]

No, but that's not the point. I think the point really is that the Packers had at least two other QBs during the Favre years in Brunnel and Hasselbeck that might have been "good enough" with a GM that could otherwise assemble pieces around them. Maybe different pieces, but pieces that would fit. Don't forget, if the Packers had not gotten Favre they would have had the first round draft pick that the gave up for him, to use or trade for another piece of the puzzle.

This is crap, Hasselbeck lost in his chance at the superbowl and lost plenty to Favre's Packers and Brunell hasn't accomplished shit either. This Packer team wouldn't have won without Rodgers and that team wouldn't have won without Favre. If QB means nothing lets get what we can for Rodgers now, his value will never be higher, were good enough we can win with Flynn or some other guy.

[gbgary]

shots taken at fb after the superbowl are nothing compared to the shots taken before. he's made his bed and now has to lay in it. i think the win pretty much shuts the gates...unless he does something else stupid.

[Guiness]

True, and he also said that God told him to come to Green Bay.
But, as cynics have pointed out in the past, its funny how those two significant factors coincided with the place that offered the most money.

lol - I knew god would eventually get mentioned in reference to him

[Zool]

It's officially the off season.

[channtheman]

True, and he also said that God told him to come to Green Bay.
But, as cynics have pointed out in the past, its funny how those two significant factors coincided with the place that offered the most money.

And he used much of the money he made to help people. Only Reggie knows but I don't think it's fair to imply he was "greedy" if that is what you are implying.

[cheesner]

Favre has earned as much disrespect from former fans as he has disrespected this great franchise.

From going on Greta and bitching, to calling opposing teams to help them beat the Packers, from admitting he wanted to play for the Vikings to stick it to TT (and by extension the Packers), to the years of being a prima donna with his 'I might retire song and dance'. The list goes on, and I am sure every poster here can add a few.

Furthermore, some posters here deserve as many pots shots at them for their years of pot shots at GB management and general character assassination of Ted Thompson.

[Patler]

No, but that's not the point. I think the point really is that the Packers had at least two other QBs during the Favre years in Brunnel and Hasselbeck that might have been "good enough" with a GM that could otherwise assemble pieces around them. Maybe different pieces, but pieces that would fit. Don't forget, if the Packers had not gotten Favre they would have had the first round draft pick that the gave up for him, to use or trade for another piece of the puzzle.

This is crap, Hasselbeck lost in his chance at the superbowl and lost plenty to Favre's Packers and Brunell hasn't accomplished shit either. This Packer team wouldn't have won without Rodgers and that team wouldn't have won without Favre. If QB means nothing lets get what we can for Rodgers now, his value will never be higher, were good enough we can win with Flynn or some other guy.

Did I say QB means nothing? Did anyone?
Didn't Favre also lose a Super Bowl? How is that different from Hasselbecks loss?

You seem to not accept that Favre was part of a TEAM that won a Super Bowl and perhaps some other good QBs might also have won if they were on that team, because the defense and STs were pretty darn good. Didn't the MVP of that game go to a special teamer? Didn't Reggie White set the Super Bowl record for sacks in that game?

Brunell was a pretty good QB there for a while, and with a good team around him was capable of winning.

Hasselbeck proved he was good enough to take a team to the Super Bowl, a team that I don't think was as well balanced as the '96 Packers. I would posit that any QB good enough to get his team to the Super Bowl is good enough to win it. Besides, wasn't it a "trick" play from Pittsburgh in the 4th quarter that clinched it for them against Seattle in the Super Bowl?

I have always believed that the GM is more crucial than any one player, because different combinations of players could win a Super Bowl. I think Wolf could have assembled a roster with Brunell or some other QB of similar talent that would have been capable of winning a Super Bowl.

After all, Favre hasn't won them all, and didn't even win all of the ones he played in, so clearly other QBs are capable of winning Super Bowls, including some who were not as good as Favre. It depends on the rest of the roster.