Favre, Thompson, Rogers. The End.

[woodbuck27]

PackerBlues.

Slap some good sense into them.

[cheesner]

8. Favre is not a big concern, but once he has a bad game or two I see certain people blowing up the forum with the Rodgers cries

Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

When Rodgers was drafted, Favre was already in a 'this may be my last year mode'. TT had no idea on when he would need to replace Favre. Whether you can win or not with an average QB, the wins come much easier with a good QB, because it allows you to do so much more. For instance, what good is a WR who can 'stretch the field' when your QB can only throw 25 yards? There have been some great teams with only average QBs, but they would have been even greater with a great QB. Whenever you can get a very good QB, you do it - especially when there are question marks on your roster as there was for the Packers.

[PackerBlues]

I understand that people were speculating that Favre would retire that year, however one could still argue that QB was not so pressing of a need that we needed to use a first round pick on Rogers. We had J.T O'Sullivan as our 3rd string QB, and Craig Nall as our 2nd string. I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.

[SkinBasket]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.

Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

[PackerBlues]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.

Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

Yeah, kinda like Rogers career has SKYROCKETED. Going from being Brett Favre's backup in 2005 to being.........Brett Favre's backup in 2007.

[cheesner]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.

Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

Yeah, kinda like Rogers career has SKYROCKETED. Going from being Brett Favre's backup in 2005 to being.........Brett Favre's backup in 2007.

You got me there. If a guy can't unseat one of the greatest QBs of all time within 3 years, he obviously must suck. I don't understand you PB, you openly admit you think Favre is great, yet you expect a young inexperienced QB to unseat him? Something missing in the logic.

[PackerTimer]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.

Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

Yeah, kinda like Rogers career has SKYROCKETED. Going from being Brett Favre's backup in 2005 to being.........Brett Favre's backup in 2007.

Except Nall has been playing second fiddle to J.P. Losman. If he can't beat out J.P. fricken Losman, how did you expect him to take over in Green Bay?

[PackerBlues]

Did it matter at all, in the least, who was Brett Favre's backup in GB the last two years. Again, I am looking at it from the point of view that Rogers was a wasted draft pick. Nall and Rogers are both back ups right now, and wondering which one of them is a better QB is a moot point, because again, they are both nothing more than backups.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Haha, B.

I'm not going to paint TT into a record expectation because so much goes into it. I expect TT to keep this team improving and we should be at least 8-8 if we improve, but I'm not going to give up on TT if the record falls short an other things show signs of being on the up and up.

I will give up if the team shows it's not getting better. If we take steps back and it's clear we're not competitive. I've said that before and I've promised to jump off TT's wagon if that happened. I've never promised to jump off based on the record. Too much goes into it.

For this season to be a success, for me it's all about the playoffs. I expect NO LESS than 9 wins and absolutely no games were we are completely blown out from start to finish.

[Rastak]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.

Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

How much playing time has he had? Wasn't Losman a pretty high draft pick himself?

[Bretsky]

Most hear know I detested Rodgers as a draft pick for Green Bay; main reason was I wanted to win one more title before Favre left and I felt after Favre retired there is alwaya serviceable QB to grab via free agency (little did I know about Turtleology then) that we could sign as a stop gap before we use a high draft pick to find one.

But I'm willing to give Rodgers a chance when it occurs and admit he's looked better this year.

[SkinBasket]

Did it matter at all, in the least, who was Brett Favre's backup in GB the last two years. Again, I am looking at it from the point of view that Rogers was a wasted draft pick. Nall and Rogers are both back ups right now, and wondering which one of them is a better QB is a moot point, because again, they are both nothing more than backups.

Oh, so now it's a point of view thing again, and a moot point at that. Very convenient. This thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts for you Blues. Not one I would want to watch if I were you, but entertaining nonetheless.

How much playing time has he had? Wasn't Losman a pretty high draft pick himself?

If he was good enough, in at least one person's ill-formed opinion, to replace Favre, I'm sure he should have been good enough to beat out a disappointing Losman. There's a reason why guys like Nall don't get more playing time, and it's not because they are good players. High draft pick or no, teams don't tend to sit the better QB the way they might other positions.

[Partial]

Did it matter at all, in the least, who was Brett Favre's backup in GB the last two years. Again, I am looking at it from the point of view that Rogers was a wasted draft pick. Nall and Rogers are both back ups right now, and wondering which one of them is a better QB is a moot point, because again, they are both nothing more than backups.

Oh, so now it's a point of view thing again, and a moot point at that. Very convenient. This thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts for you Blues. Not one I would want to watch if I were you, but entertaining nonetheless.

How much playing time has he had? Wasn't Losman a pretty high draft pick himself?

If he was good enough, in at least one person's ill-formed opinion, to replace Favre, I'm sure he should have been good enough to beat out a disappointing Losman. There's a reason why guys like Nall don't get more playing time, and it's not because they are good players. High draft pick or no, teams don't tend to sit the better QB the way they might other positions.

So was Grossman. People picked a Favre successor just about every year since 2002-2003 that they could gamble on in the 1st and develop.

[PackerBlues]

Oh, so now it's a point of view thing again, and a moot point at that. Very convenient. This thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts for you Blues. Not one I would want to watch if I were you, but entertaining nonetheless.

I really have to wonder, just what in the fuck is your problem? I see all sorts of intelligent posts from other people in this thread. Hell, some of the people, I dont even agree with at all at times, and yet they at least state their own opinions in an intelligent and well thought out manner. All I have seen from you is your pompous remarks about posts that I have made, with nothing at all from you of your own opinions, nothing intelligent, nothing thought out. Just stupid assed sarcasm with nothing to add.
From your very first post in this thread, you have done nothing but challenge me and demand explanations that you simply ignore anyway. You quote me as having said things that I did not say, and when I prove it, your warped little mind cant handle it, so you disapear for a while only to pop up again later, demanding more proof or explanations about shit that I have already gone over.

So, yes, this thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts, and anyone that wants to go back and look through this thread will have no problem figuring out where I stand on the issues that the title of the thread suggests. Favre, Thompson, and Rogers. The only person I can see that should be embarrassed by their posts, is you. Every post that you have put into this thread has been no more than a sentence or two demanding proof of something, making smart-assed comments about something that I or someone else posted, or just plain and simple ranting. Hell man, people that I dont agree with at all have made me question my stand a number of times. They usually throw together a few paragraphs of well thought out material. Unlike you, again, anyone wanting to go back and look at your posts, is only going to see one or two sentences of sarcastic, smart assed shit.

Feel free to continue throwing words like "retardosity" at me, and demanding explanations that have already been given, but that you choose time and time again to ignore, it will fall on deaf ears. This is the last time that I will be responding to your negative BS. Get help, because to be honest with you buddy, I really pity you.

[Scott Campbell]

You (Skin) quote me as having said things that I did not say........

Where did he misquote you?