Did the Packers Make the Right Decision for Their Ball Club (1 Viewer)

[Mimo]

Packers will regret this decision. They are destined for a sub .500 year. Rodgers will be Joey Harrington Part Deux

 

[Broadway Brett]

Ted Thompson and the Packers FO took the hard medicine and made the best decision for the long term viability of the franchise. I have more respect for TT after this because he proved that he is willing to take a bullet for the Pack and sacrifice his public image, which is what he gets paid to do. Even BF, with his repeated character assassinations of TT, didn't break him.Consider that a few months ago BF was retired and the Pack received nothing from his retirement other than additional cap space. Now they have draft pick(s) and BF becomes the Jet's problem.

And the Packers will have a much higher draft pick then they would have with Farve. That was probably a part of the plan, don't you think?

Ted Thompson does love him some draft picks. Bottom line: If BF would have committed to himself at some point before training camp to the Packer organization, he would still be with the team. BF decided he wanted to play on his terms. TT said no. After much media drama, the situation came to a head when BF was reinstated and reported to camp. TT made BF his ##### and pimped him to the highest bidder. The end.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement from someone who should know football and how negotiations work.Wow

I see the accelerator is stuck on "full on Packer FO bashing"

 

[Joe Bryant]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

At being hesitant to pay an unproven RB while offering Favre a 20 million deal as "bashing TT". J

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

It's not really how negotiations go. Since when have we had a guy retired, wanting to come back and play and get offered 20 million to stay retired?There might be legal issues here and there but to a guy like Grant who's trying to get paid in his prime, wanting to play for the Packers in his prime, it's a tough pill to swallow when he's getting told no, he can't have this to play for the Packers but Brett Farve was getting offered 20 million to 25 million to not even freaken play.

That is not normal negotiations.

 

[sho nuff]

I don't like the idea of kissing any player's butt, but I do think that as long as Brett Favre can play at a high level (he was second in the MVP voting last year) and as long as the Packers are winning (they were one game away from the Super Bowl last year), I'm fine with giving him as much time to deliberate on his future as he'd like. Sure it can be a pain in the ### and everyone would like the guy to make up his mind and stick to one decision, but if giving him as much time as he needs is the difference between winning and losing (which is often the case between a good QB and one who isn't good or who is untested or possibly both) I'm fine with allowing him to make the decision on his timetable.But that's me. My focus would be on doing everything in my power to ensure my team has the best possible chance at success. I'm kinda nutty that way.

You cannot give him as much time as he wants though...what if he takes til June or July...and decides to hang it up?You cannot go on not knowing like that.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm actually stunned to see someone say, "We just witnessed the biggest blunder in sports history." I know we're in an era of hyperbole but c'mon. A month ago Favre wasn't part of the Packers game plan and the consensus was they were a playoff team with legitimate Super Bowl potential. Now, because...Brett Favre isn't on the team...it's the biggest blunder ever?!?!?Heck, that's not even the biggest QB blunder in their own division this year. The Bears decision to re-sign Orton and Grossman and let them compete for the job is worse, as is (IMHO), the Vikings doing nothing to protect themselves against Tarvaris Jackson failing to improve.

Of course not that dramatic.But yesterday was the culmination of one of the biggest managerial mishandlings in the NFL for quite some time in my opinion.This is a bottom line game. And the bottom line is that they were unable to deliver their best player to the starting line up this season. And I believe it is mostly their fault. Now all of this is based on the assumption that Favre would have been a lot better than Rodgers will be. If you don't believe that, then obviously, it's not a blunder.J

and there is no consideration for what the Packers do next year without Favre... or the next year?Eventually Favre needs to give someone something, and this back and forth stuff is especially this year since he actually retired for most of the off-season...

Do you think Favre would have retired if Thompson or McCarthy told him he was wanted back in February?

Well...they did...and he did.

 

[sho nuff]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.Always drama with him in the off-season.

Too bad they offered it long before they even started with Grant.

 

[twistd]

larry_boy....If Favre was such a terrible teammate for the last 3 years and the Packers went 13-3 last year with that terrible teammate as QB....what do you predict for the Packers this year and next year since they have a new leader?

I don't know... there's more to being a good team that just having a good leader... Favre brought it on the field, even if he did nothing with the team off the field...However, if Rodgers is above average, I think the team will win the division again.You need to remember that it wasn't Favre and Favre alone who won last year... No one can cover the WRs that Green Bay is throwing at them... and if they do figure out a way to do it, stopping Grant from running it down thier throats then became impossible...Favre had it easy. Honestly, as much as I think everyone overstated how bad he was when it was happening, I think his season 2 and 3 years ago are more showing of Favre's skill level at this point in his career than last year was... Last year was good because the team was that good. It was by far the most talented team Favre had around him ever. If Favre had been as good last year as he was in 1996, we would have probably won more games than we did and we would have been in the Super Bowl.

Are you serious? You truely have no clue and based on what you said that talent and Rodgers should get the Packers to the Super Bowl since you feel the team is better off with Rodgers than Favre.

I believe I said that the "franchise" is better with Rodgers than Favre... I don't know if the team will play better with Rodgers than they did with Favre, we won't know that 'til the season starts...However, the team (outside of Rodgers) is improved from last year to this year, IMO...oh yeah, and I do happen to think the Packers have a shot at the Super Bowl this year, no matter who thier QB is (Rodgers, Brohm, or Favre)

The Packers have no chance of winning a Super Bowl this year. They will not win a Super Bowl with either Rodgers or Brohm this year. Favre was their chance. I doubt they will win their division now. I don't think the Jets are going to win a Super Bowl with Favre. But the Packers are not better without him now. How many teams have appeared to be a team to stay in contention for a long time and just faded away. Unless Rodgers really comes in and lights it up, this is a disaster for them.

 

[larry_boy_44]

The Packers have no chance of winning a Super Bowl this year. They will not win a Super Bowl with either Rodgers or Brohm this year. Favre was their chance. I doubt they will win their division now. I don't think the Jets are going to win a Super Bowl with Favre. But the Packers are not better without him now. How many teams have appeared to be a team to stay in contention for a long time and just faded away. Unless Rodgers really comes in and lights it up, this is a disaster for them.

Really? Because, honestly, I think the Packers won games last year because they were really, really deep and really, really talented everywhere. They didn't win because of Brett Favre, it wasn't the mid-90s...Rodgers doesn't have to light it up for them to win, he just needs to not screw up too badly... They don't need a great QB, they are that talented on both sides of the ball...Plus, with or without Favre, I'd love to see the gameplan that covers Driver, Jennings, Jones, Martin, & Nelson.... oh yeah, and stops Grant, Jackson, & Wynn from running freely...And that isn't taking into account the Packers' defense, which should be BETTER this year than it was last year.But, hey, everything Green Bay did last year was all about Brett Favre, right? The same Favre who suddenly had his 3rd highest yardage total of his career after his worst season ever... The same Favre who suddenly had the highest completion percentage of his entire career, right?? The same Favre who had his third highest QB rating of his career, right???Yeah, that guy? You really think that suddenly at 38 years old and coming off his WORST YEAR EVER he suddenly got that good again? I love Brett Favre, I have spent 16 years cheering him on and, honestly, thinking about the Packers without him still feels wrong to me... But if you really think that every win last year was about Favre and not about that young, talented team that was put around him, you're crazy and either have no clue what you are talking about or didn't actually watch a game, rather you just listened to what Madden thought of the Packers...

 

[TwinTurbo]

I think the Pack should have taken Favre back for one final year. Make it clear for both sides that it's a one year deal and give AR some more playing time this year to see what they've really got. Favre would have been the starter, but would have passed the torch to AR at the end of the season. If Favre would not have accepted terms for a one and done situation, then they should have traded him. Maybe that is what they tried to do, who really knows. But the more I watch Mike McCarthy talk, the more I think this guy is one giant dooshbag that is going to figure out really quick how hard it is to win in this league without a quality QB.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think the Pack should have taken Favre back for one final year. Make it clear for both sides that it's a one year deal and give AR some more playing time this year to see what they've really got. Favre would have been the starter, but would have passed the torch to AR at the end of the season. If Favre would not have accepted terms for a one and done situation, then they should have traded him. Maybe that is what they tried to do, who really knows. But the more I watch Mike McCarthy talk, the more I think this guy is one giant dooshbag that is going to figure out really quick how hard it is to win in this league without a quality QB.

you say that like its absolute fact that Brohm and Rodgers both suck completely and will never amount to anything...If you have that kind of psychic powers, could you please give us some final scores so we can make some $$ in Vegas???

 

[thatguythere]

The Packers have no chance of winning a Super Bowl this year. They will not win a Super Bowl with either Rodgers or Brohm this year. Favre was their chance. I doubt they will win their division now. I don't think the Jets are going to win a Super Bowl with Favre. But the Packers are not better without him now. How many teams have appeared to be a team to stay in contention for a long time and just faded away. Unless Rodgers really comes in and lights it up, this is a disaster for them.

Really? Because, honestly, I think the Packers won games last year because they were really, really deep and really, really talented everywhere. They didn't win because of Brett Favre, it wasn't the mid-90s...Rodgers doesn't have to light it up for them to win, he just needs to not screw up too badly... They don't need a great QB, they are that talented on both sides of the ball...

Plus, with or without Favre, I'd love to see the gameplan that covers Driver, Jennings, Jones, Martin, & Nelson.... oh yeah, and stops Grant, Jackson, & Wynn from running freely...

And that isn't taking into account the Packers' defense, which should be BETTER this year than it was last year.

But, hey, everything Green Bay did last year was all about Brett Favre, right? The same Favre who suddenly had his 3rd highest yardage total of his career after his worst season ever... The same Favre who suddenly had the highest completion percentage of his entire career, right?? The same Favre who had his third highest QB rating of his career, right???

Yeah, that guy? You really think that suddenly at 38 years old and coming off his WORST YEAR EVER he suddenly got that good again? I love Brett Favre, I have spent 16 years cheering him on and, honestly, thinking about the Packers without him still feels wrong to me... But if you really think that every win last year was about Favre and not about that young, talented team that was put around him, you're crazy and either have no clue what you are talking about or didn't actually watch a game, rather you just listened to what Madden thought of the Packers...

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre. Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

At being hesitant to pay an unproven RB while offering Favre a 20 million deal as "bashing TT". J

So who are you bashing over the Grant negotiations then? McCarthy?

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

It's not really how negotiations go. Since when have we had a guy retired, wanting to come back and play and get offered 20 million to stay retired?There might be legal issues here and there but to a guy like Grant who's trying to get paid in his prime, wanting to play for the Packers in his prime, it's a tough pill to swallow when he's getting told no, he can't have this to play for the Packers but Brett Farve was getting offered 20 million to 25 million to not even freaken play.

That is not normal negotiations.

I don't understand what you're saying. Favre's stuff had nothing to do with Grants negotiations, which is what Joe was bashing the Packers about.

 

[Sabertooth]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

No kidding. Joe just has it in for Thompson. Joe, normally you are pretty objective but you are just missing the boat on this one.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

No kidding. Joe just has it in for Thompson. Joe, normally you are pretty objective but you are just missing the boat on this one.

Pun intended or not?

 

[GreenNGold]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

This is a ludicrous statement.

How so?J

Because that's how NFL negotiations go, especially with a player who hasn't even started a full year. But not just a player like that, but for almost any player. Teams always negotiate, it's the way it goes. Grant's case was unique in that he hasn't even played a full season as a starter yet.I know you know this is how it works, it just seems like you won't back off your bashing of TT.

No kidding. Joe just has it in for Thompson. Joe, normally you are pretty objective but you are just missing the boat on this one.

I disagree. I think Joe is hitting the nail on the head. It doesn't seem like there is much middle ground on this issue, everyone seems to be pretty much 100% one way or the other on this issue. Time will tell who is right. Personally, I think Green Bay is about to find out how it felt to be almost any other team in the league for the last 16 years.

 

[Blood Farmer]

It never ceases to amaze me about how many people have such difficulty in preventing emotion from obscuring logical conclusions.

Farve is a prima donna and expected, no he demanded, to be treated as such.

TT is a tough football guy that refused to let some prima donna push him around ( McCarthy probably agreeded with him).

Both sides spin the story to place blame on the other side.

The lovers and haters line up and believe ONLY the side that they choose to back.

-------

None of the above has any importantance.

If you believe that Rogers is going to give your team a better chance of winning a Super Bowl then as coach, GM and team President you go with Rogers.

If you don't, you bite the bullet and welcome Farve back and let him have his prima donna ways while you kiss his feet and hope to get to the Super Bowl.

Personally, I consider myself a principled person. I would much prefer my favorite team to lose than to back a team with someone like Adam Jones, Ray Lewis or Leonard Little. But, as a business man in the current NFL you will NEVER win if you take a stance that you will not tolerate the prima donnas. They are now ubiquitous amongst the NFLs teams most outstanding players and the lower ranks as well.

So everyone can jump up and down about the he said/she said but it just reveals your lack of objectivity and lessens your credibility. It comes down to whether you believe the Super Bowl is more achievable with Rogers or Farve.

Now - I feel very confident in my opinion that Farve would have given GB the best opportunity to maximize the team's potential. If you have another opinion, so be it. GB has a much better team, outside of the QB position, than they had in 2005 and 2006. Let's see if Rogers can lead the team to a result that is better than the GB teams of those years. If so, then we will see if he is actually the answer. Will he lead the improved GB team further than Farve did in 2007? The proof is in the pudding. But the little girl gossipy stuff is illogical and emotional. In other words just plain goofy.

 

[Enforcer]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre. Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The thought did cross my mind, but then I remembered that Favre had just posted some fairly embarrassing seasons before the new influx of talent. You can't have it both ways.IMO his surrounding talent made him look much better, not the other way around.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre. Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

 

[JTM]

All of it boils down to this:

1. Green Bay gave up on one of the toughest FOOTBALL PLAYERS to ever play the game. What made Favre great was that getting hit made him feel alive, which in turn provided him the emotion and energy to get up and stick it in the opposing team's ###. This also made him wreckless.

2. Aaron Rodgers has an obvious skill set comparable to NFL level QB's, but he's not battle-tested. Everyone looks good in practice, but how will he react to getting the snot knocked out of him on consecutive plays? David Carr or Brett Favre?

I think Green Bay realized that Brett, though still capable of leading the team to victory, is still just as capable of leading the team to defeat. Couple that with his age and they decided to go with the young guy that will throw the ball out of bounds when necessary.

We'll all know who Aaron Rodgers is after that first blind-side blitz lights his ### up like a Christmas tree...and not until then.

 

[bcr8f]

TT drafts WR's that catch the ball with their hands away from their body. He also likes players that can get separation in close to defenders. He dratfed players I think that are variations of Donald Driver.

Has Brett made them look good-yes.

Has Jennings made him look good catching 6 yards passes and running 40 yards-yes.

 

[GregR_2]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.J

That's another great example of how I think they shot themselves in the foot. Regardless of whether Favre was in the right or the wrong in what he did, the Packers found themselves in the situation they did. They had to decide how they were going to handle it, and some ways of handling it were better or worse in regards to the Packers own interest.I just don't see how their handling of it was one of those ways that was beneficial to that self interest. They could have come out of this smelling like roses if they'd shown a public willingness to take Favre back and have a QB competition, or to work with him on a mutually beneficial trade if one could be found. They could have been the team that showed respect to their franchise icon even in a moment when he might not have been reciprocating fully, and looked like the better men for doing so. Instead, I think they made it clear they didn't want him back. It probably hurt his trade value. He probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit. What message does it send to the guy who actually is playing that they'll pay Favre to stay retired before they'll pay him more for playing?Just not good handling of this issue at all.

 

[sho nuff]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre. Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

 

[sho nuff]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.J

That's another great example of how I think they shot themselves in the foot. Regardless of whether Favre was in the right or the wrong in what he did, the Packers found themselves in the situation they did. They had to decide how they were going to handle it, and some ways of handling it were better or worse in regards to the Packers own interest.I just don't see how their handling of it was one of those ways that was beneficial to that self interest. They could have come out of this smelling like roses if they'd shown a public willingness to take Favre back and have a QB competition, or to work with him on a mutually beneficial trade if one could be found. They could have been the team that showed respect to their franchise icon even in a moment when he might not have been reciprocating fully, and looked like the better men for doing so. Instead, I think they made it clear they didn't want him back. It probably hurt his trade value. He probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit. What message does it send to the guy who actually is playing that they'll pay Favre to stay retired before they'll pay him more for playing?Just not good handling of this issue at all.

Ummm...the team he got traded to...they were willing to work with him on that trade several weeks ago...Favre refused to talk to either NY or Tampa.

 

[GregR_2]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.J

That's another great example of how I think they shot themselves in the foot. Regardless of whether Favre was in the right or the wrong in what he did, the Packers found themselves in the situation they did. They had to decide how they were going to handle it, and some ways of handling it were better or worse in regards to the Packers own interest.I just don't see how their handling of it was one of those ways that was beneficial to that self interest. They could have come out of this smelling like roses if they'd shown a public willingness to take Favre back and have a QB competition, or to work with him on a mutually beneficial trade if one could be found. They could have been the team that showed respect to their franchise icon even in a moment when he might not have been reciprocating fully, and looked like the better men for doing so. Instead, I think they made it clear they didn't want him back. It probably hurt his trade value. He probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit. What message does it send to the guy who actually is playing that they'll pay Favre to stay retired before they'll pay him more for playing?Just not good handling of this issue at all.

Ummm...the team he got traded to...they were willing to work with him on that trade several weeks ago...Favre refused to talk to either NY or Tampa.

Right, so we're in agreement. As I said, because of how things went down, Favre...

... probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit.

The Packers could have handled it differently to avoid the adversarial relationship that resulted between they and Favre. If so he might have been willing to talk to those teams. He might have been more willing to renegotiate his contract for them. Better contract means he's worth more to the Jets which means they may be willing to give up more to the Packers.So by letting the adversarial situation fester, the Packers potentially hurt their own interests in how much they might have been able to get for him in trade.

 

[sho nuff]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

That's another great example of how I think they shot themselves in the foot. Regardless of whether Favre was in the right or the wrong in what he did, the Packers found themselves in the situation they did. They had to decide how they were going to handle it, and some ways of handling it were better or worse in regards to the Packers own interest.

I just don't see how their handling of it was one of those ways that was beneficial to that self interest. They could have come out of this smelling like roses if they'd shown a public willingness to take Favre back and have a QB competition, or to work with him on a mutually beneficial trade if one could be found. They could have been the team that showed respect to their franchise icon even in a moment when he might not have been reciprocating fully, and looked like the better men for doing so.

Instead, I think they made it clear they didn't want him back. It probably hurt his trade value. He probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit. What message does it send to the guy who actually is playing that they'll pay Favre to stay retired before they'll pay him more for playing?

Just not good handling of this issue at all.

Ummm...the team he got traded to...they were willing to work with him on that trade several weeks ago...Favre refused to talk to either NY or Tampa.

Right, so we're in agreement. As I said, because of how things went down, Favre...

... probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit.

The Packers could have handled it differently to avoid the adversarial relationship that resulted between they and Favre. If so he might have been willing to talk to those teams. He might have been more willing to renegotiate his contract for them. Better contract means he's worth more to the Jets which means they may be willing to give up more to the Packers.So by letting the adversarial situation fester, the Packers potentially hurt their own interests in how much they might have been able to get for him in trade.

I was responding to the bolded comment above...

 

[JTM]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre. Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

 

[GregR_2]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.

Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...

J

I was extremely surprised when they supposedly offered him 20 mil to stay retired while at that point in time Ryan Grant was still trying to get over league minimum out of them.If I was Grant at that point in time I would have been livid.

Packers screwed up their personnal matters this spring, although Favre has become quite a prima donna the last few years.

Always drama with him in the off-season.

Yes, it was hard for them to play poor with Grant while they were offering Favre that.I also heard some rumblings from older Packer veterans that are struggling now. It's hard for them to see that kind of money being thrown around when they feel like they could use a slice of it. And deserve some of it.

J

That's another great example of how I think they shot themselves in the foot. Regardless of whether Favre was in the right or the wrong in what he did, the Packers found themselves in the situation they did. They had to decide how they were going to handle it, and some ways of handling it were better or worse in regards to the Packers own interest.

I just don't see how their handling of it was one of those ways that was beneficial to that self interest. They could have come out of this smelling like roses if they'd shown a public willingness to take Favre back and have a QB competition, or to work with him on a mutually beneficial trade if one could be found. They could have been the team that showed respect to their franchise icon even in a moment when he might not have been reciprocating fully, and looked like the better men for doing so.

Instead, I think they made it clear they didn't want him back. It probably hurt his trade value. He probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit. What message does it send to the guy who actually is playing that they'll pay Favre to stay retired before they'll pay him more for playing?

Just not good handling of this issue at all.

Ummm...the team he got traded to...they were willing to work with him on that trade several weeks ago...Favre refused to talk to either NY or Tampa.

Right, so we're in agreement. As I said, because of how things went down, Favre...

... probably was less willing to restructure as a way of getting the other teams to give up more for him which is to the Packers benefit.

The Packers could have handled it differently to avoid the adversarial relationship that resulted between they and Favre. If so he might have been willing to talk to those teams. He might have been more willing to renegotiate his contract for them. Better contract means he's worth more to the Jets which means they may be willing to give up more to the Packers.So by letting the adversarial situation fester, the Packers potentially hurt their own interests in how much they might have been able to get for him in trade.

I was responding to the bolded comment above...

Yes, I know. Pointing out that Favre wasn't willing to work with the team as things actually played out is pointing out a piece of the foundation upon which my points are based. So thank you.If they had chosen a course to defuse the animosity, he might have worked with them on the trade which should have increased his value to the Jets and thus increased the Packers possibly compensation.

Regardless of who is at fault for the situation arising in the first place, once the Packers found themselves in that situation, they could have handled it better and likely come out of it with better compensation and more support from their fan base.

Edit to add: Let me further clarify. Saying "But the Packers DID try to work with him on a trade" isn't the point and isn't what I said. My point is that the Packers let an air of animosity exist between the team and him. This animosity meant the likelihood Favre would help them on a trade the team wanted is less. And as you point out, when they wanted him to help on a trade the team wanted, he wasn't willing. That's my whole point, if they'd defused the situation he might have helped them.

That is shooting yourself in the foot. The animosity didn't gain the Packers anything in the long run. It lowered their leverage by other teams knowing they didn't want Favre. It contributed to Favre not being willing to help the team on trades they were more interested in than he was. And some of their fanbase that are upset at them might not have been if they'd been seen to publicly try to defuse the animosity instead of contributing to it as they did.

 

[Phurfur]

What is wrong with Packer fans and GB Wisconsin? Maybe it is time to move that franchise out to LA. I do find this very amusing.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.d.../308080027/1987

The local CBS affiliate plans to air at least eight New York Jets games this season.

Jets games are suddenly in high demand after the trade of Brett Favre, and the station has requested permission from CBS Sports to carry as many games as possible, WFRV-TV Channel 5 announced this morning.

The games WFRV expects to air are:

Sept. 7: New York Jets at Miami Dolphins, noon

Sept. 14: New England Patriots at New York Jets, 3:15 p.m.

Oct. 12: Cincinnati Bengals at New York Jets, noon

Oct. 26: Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets, noon

Nov. 2: New York Jets at Buffalo Bills, noon

Nov. 23: New York Jets at Tennessee Titans, noon

Dec. 14: Buffalo Bills at New York Jets, noon

Dec. 21: New York Jets at Seattle Seahawks, 3:05 p.m.

Two games begin at the same time as a Green Bay Packers game. On those days, the Packers' schedule is as follows:

Nov. 2: Packers at Tennessee Titans, noon (FOX)

Dec. 14: Packers at Jacksonville Jaguars, noon (FOX)

 

[sho nuff]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre. Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

He actually has some nice arm strength from what I have seen...and his deeper balls have looked decent so far.Worthy to note he had his best practices of the year Wednesday...after Favre left for Mississippi.

 

[larry_boy_44]

The Packers have no chance of winning a Super Bowl this year. They will not win a Super Bowl with either Rodgers or Brohm this year. Favre was their chance. I doubt they will win their division now. I don't think the Jets are going to win a Super Bowl with Favre. But the Packers are not better without him now. How many teams have appeared to be a team to stay in contention for a long time and just faded away. Unless Rodgers really comes in and lights it up, this is a disaster for them.

Really? Because, honestly, I think the Packers won games last year because they were really, really deep and really, really talented everywhere. They didn't win because of Brett Favre, it wasn't the mid-90s...Rodgers doesn't have to light it up for them to win, he just needs to not screw up too badly... They don't need a great QB, they are that talented on both sides of the ball...

Plus, with or without Favre, I'd love to see the gameplan that covers Driver, Jennings, Jones, Martin, & Nelson.... oh yeah, and stops Grant, Jackson, & Wynn from running freely...

And that isn't taking into account the Packers' defense, which should be BETTER this year than it was last year.

But, hey, everything Green Bay did last year was all about Brett Favre, right? The same Favre who suddenly had his 3rd highest yardage total of his career after his worst season ever... The same Favre who suddenly had the highest completion percentage of his entire career, right?? The same Favre who had his third highest QB rating of his career, right???

Yeah, that guy? You really think that suddenly at 38 years old and coming off his WORST YEAR EVER he suddenly got that good again? I love Brett Favre, I have spent 16 years cheering him on and, honestly, thinking about the Packers without him still feels wrong to me... But if you really think that every win last year was about Favre and not about that young, talented team that was put around him, you're crazy and either have no clue what you are talking about or didn't actually watch a game, rather you just listened to what Madden thought of the Packers...

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

yes and no...See, you need to remember that I've spent 16 years watching Brett Favre make crappy players better...

Bill Schroeder, Antonio Freeman... He made them...

Dorsey Levens... Edgar Bennett...

The only guys (not including guys like Rison he only had for half a season) who an argument could even be made for as being better than Jennings that Favre has ever had is Robert Brooks (and that's iffy) and Sterling Sharpe (and there is no shame in Sharpe being better than you)...

I would say the same thing of Jones...

Maybe Green is better than Grant is... and, honestly, I'm pretty sure Green is the only one better than Jackson & Wynn, too...

So could Favre have made them better? A little bit, yeah... But all he really did, at most, was shorten thier learning curve in the NFL... Because they actually are talented...

Oh yeah, plus the fact that Favre in 2007 was no where near as good as Favre in 1997...

 

[JTM]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

He actually has some nice arm strength from what I have seen...and his deeper balls have looked decent so far.Worthy to note he had his best practices of the year Wednesday...after Favre left for Mississippi.

I stand corrected: http://football.about.com/b/2005/02/13/sco...-california.htm. I must have misremembered.The ultimate question regards winning today, and TODAY...right this second...given what we KNOW, Favre unquestionably gives the Packers the best chance at success in 2008 because you know if he gets hit, he'll get up unaffected. That's the wildcard with Rodgers, will he get up unaffected or will he start peeking at the pass rush when he should be focusing down-field?

I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..

 

[Bizkiteer]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was thinking more along the lines of Dodds telling you that he was retiring in late winter. You cancel other projects and focus on rebuilding the organization. Maybe go as far as to promote Chase and Aaron into full time positions and they quit other interests because of the promotion. Then in late July Dodds tells you that he's coming back for one more season and that you need to reshuffle your organizational plan to accomodate him.

That's a great example. I do a back flip and welcome David the second I think I could get him back. Actually, I do more than that. I do everything I can in the relationship to never let him get to the point of quitting.And I love Chase and Aaron. And I think they love me. But they both will tell you in a second that David and I have a different relationship.J

Not when Dodds has been saying that he's unsure he's going to be coming back each year. After awhile, no matter how good Dodds is...it wears thin for running the organization. Chase, Aaron and whoever would only play the seesaw game so many times before they wanted out. So, it's not a matter of the one time it's the uncertainty of knowing if Dodds is committed or not and all the hoops you jump through....each time.

 

[larry_boy_44]

What is wrong with Packer fans and GB Wisconsin? Maybe it is time to move that franchise out to LA. I do find this very amusing.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.d.../308080027/1987

The local CBS affiliate plans to air at least eight New York Jets games this season.

Jets games are suddenly in high demand after the trade of Brett Favre, and the station has requested permission from CBS Sports to carry as many games as possible, WFRV-TV Channel 5 announced this morning.

The games WFRV expects to air are:

Sept. 7: New York Jets at Miami Dolphins, noon

Sept. 14: New England Patriots at New York Jets, 3:15 p.m.

Oct. 12: Cincinnati Bengals at New York Jets, noon

Oct. 26: Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets, noon

Nov. 2: New York Jets at Buffalo Bills, noon

Nov. 23: New York Jets at Tennessee Titans, noon

Dec. 14: Buffalo Bills at New York Jets, noon

Dec. 21: New York Jets at Seattle Seahawks, 3:05 p.m.

Two games begin at the same time as a Green Bay Packers game. On those days, the Packers' schedule is as follows:

Nov. 2: Packers at Tennessee Titans, noon (FOX)

Dec. 14: Packers at Jacksonville Jaguars, noon (FOX)

You should try and tell the owners that they should move the team to LA... see how well that works...

 

[fatness]

What is wrong with Packer fans and GB Wisconsin? Maybe it is time to move that franchise out to LA. I do find this very amusing.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.d.../308080027/1987

The local CBS affiliate plans to air at least eight New York Jets games this season.

Jets games are suddenly in high demand after the trade of Brett Favre, and the station has requested permission from CBS Sports to carry as many games as possible, WFRV-TV Channel 5 announced this morning.

The games WFRV expects to air are:

Sept. 7: New York Jets at Miami Dolphins, noon

Sept. 14: New England Patriots at New York Jets, 3:15 p.m.

Oct. 12: Cincinnati Bengals at New York Jets, noon

Oct. 26: Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets, noon

Nov. 2: New York Jets at Buffalo Bills, noon

Nov. 23: New York Jets at Tennessee Titans, noon

Dec. 14: Buffalo Bills at New York Jets, noon

Dec. 21: New York Jets at Seattle Seahawks, 3:05 p.m.

Two games begin at the same time as a Green Bay Packers game. On those days, the Packers' schedule is as follows:

Nov. 2: Packers at Tennessee Titans, noon (FOX)

Dec. 14: Packers at Jacksonville Jaguars, noon (FOX)

The Jets games won't be in such high demand when the season starts. And the 2 Jets games that go head-to-head with Packer games on Nov. 2 and December 14 will bomb in the ratings. You really think Packer fans will be inclined to watch the Jets vs. Buffalo twice instead of the Packers? No way.

 

[ScottyFargo]

What is wrong with Packer fans and GB Wisconsin? Maybe it is time to move that franchise out to LA. I do find this very amusing.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.d.../308080027/1987

The local CBS affiliate plans to air at least eight New York Jets games this season.

Jets games are suddenly in high demand after the trade of Brett Favre, and the station has requested permission from CBS Sports to carry as many games as possible, WFRV-TV Channel 5 announced this morning.

The games WFRV expects to air are:

Sept. 7: New York Jets at Miami Dolphins, noon

Sept. 14: New England Patriots at New York Jets, 3:15 p.m.

Oct. 12: Cincinnati Bengals at New York Jets, noon

Oct. 26: Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets, noon

Nov. 2: New York Jets at Buffalo Bills, noon

Nov. 23: New York Jets at Tennessee Titans, noon

Dec. 14: Buffalo Bills at New York Jets, noon

Dec. 21: New York Jets at Seattle Seahawks, 3:05 p.m.

Two games begin at the same time as a Green Bay Packers game. On those days, the Packers' schedule is as follows:

Nov. 2: Packers at Tennessee Titans, noon (FOX)

Dec. 14: Packers at Jacksonville Jaguars, noon (FOX)

The Jets games won't be in such high demand when the season starts. And the 2 Jets games that go head-to-head with Packer games on Nov. 2 and December 14 will bomb in the ratings. You really think Packer fans will be inclined to watch the Jets vs. Buffalo twice instead of the Packers? No way.

Not if Rodgers does well. If he has trouble and the games all get out of hand I am sure there will be some flipping.

 

[Phurfur]

The Packers have no chance of winning a Super Bowl this year. They will not win a Super Bowl with either Rodgers or Brohm this year. Favre was their chance. I doubt they will win their division now. I don't think the Jets are going to win a Super Bowl with Favre. But the Packers are not better without him now. How many teams have appeared to be a team to stay in contention for a long time and just faded away. Unless Rodgers really comes in and lights it up, this is a disaster for them.

Really? Because, honestly, I think the Packers won games last year because they were really, really deep and really, really talented everywhere. They didn't win because of Brett Favre, it wasn't the mid-90s...Rodgers doesn't have to light it up for them to win, he just needs to not screw up too badly... They don't need a great QB, they are that talented on both sides of the ball...

Plus, with or without Favre, I'd love to see the gameplan that covers Driver, Jennings, Jones, Martin, & Nelson.... oh yeah, and stops Grant, Jackson, & Wynn from running freely...

And that isn't taking into account the Packers' defense, which should be BETTER this year than it was last year.

But, hey, everything Green Bay did last year was all about Brett Favre, right? The same Favre who suddenly had his 3rd highest yardage total of his career after his worst season ever... The same Favre who suddenly had the highest completion percentage of his entire career, right?? The same Favre who had his third highest QB rating of his career, right???

Yeah, that guy? You really think that suddenly at 38 years old and coming off his WORST YEAR EVER he suddenly got that good again? I love Brett Favre, I have spent 16 years cheering him on and, honestly, thinking about the Packers without him still feels wrong to me... But if you really think that every win last year was about Favre and not about that young, talented team that was put around him, you're crazy and either have no clue what you are talking about or didn't actually watch a game, rather you just listened to what Madden thought of the Packers...

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

yes and no...See, you need to remember that I've spent 16 years watching Brett Favre make crappy players better...

Bill Schroeder, Antonio Freeman... He made them...

Dorsey Levens... Edgar Bennett...

The only guys (not including guys like Rison he only had for half a season) who an argument could even be made for as being better than Jennings that Favre has ever had is Robert Brooks (and that's iffy) and Sterling Sharpe (and there is no shame in Sharpe being better than you)...

I would say the same thing of Jones...

Maybe Green is better than Grant is... and, honestly, I'm pretty sure Green is the only one better than Jackson & Wynn, too...

So could Favre have made them better? A little bit, yeah... But all he really did, at most, was shorten thier learning curve in the NFL... Because they actually are talented...

Oh yeah, plus the fact that Favre in 2007 was no where near as good as Favre in 1997...

I agree with you but I think we differ here. I do not think Favre is good enough to make players around him better anymore. Look at the 4-12 year, who did he make better. If I remember correctly he was one of the biggest problems.A player’s skills diminish with age, that is the way it is.

 

[sho nuff]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

He actually has some nice arm strength from what I have seen...and his deeper balls have looked decent so far.Worthy to note he had his best practices of the year Wednesday...after Favre left for Mississippi.

I stand corrected: http://football.about.com/b/2005/02/13/sco...-california.htm. I must have misremembered.The ultimate question regards winning today, and TODAY...right this second...given what we KNOW, Favre unquestionably gives the Packers the best chance at success in 2008 because you know if he gets hit, he'll get up unaffected. That's the wildcard with Rodgers, will he get up unaffected or will he start peeking at the pass rush when he should be focusing down-field?

I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..

I agree that Favre probably gave them the best chance to win "this year".But that does not make it the best decision for the ball club.

 

[larry_boy_44]

The Packers have no chance of winning a Super Bowl this year. They will not win a Super Bowl with either Rodgers or Brohm this year. Favre was their chance. I doubt they will win their division now. I don't think the Jets are going to win a Super Bowl with Favre. But the Packers are not better without him now. How many teams have appeared to be a team to stay in contention for a long time and just faded away. Unless Rodgers really comes in and lights it up, this is a disaster for them.

Really? Because, honestly, I think the Packers won games last year because they were really, really deep and really, really talented everywhere. They didn't win because of Brett Favre, it wasn't the mid-90s...Rodgers doesn't have to light it up for them to win, he just needs to not screw up too badly... They don't need a great QB, they are that talented on both sides of the ball...

Plus, with or without Favre, I'd love to see the gameplan that covers Driver, Jennings, Jones, Martin, & Nelson.... oh yeah, and stops Grant, Jackson, & Wynn from running freely...

And that isn't taking into account the Packers' defense, which should be BETTER this year than it was last year.

But, hey, everything Green Bay did last year was all about Brett Favre, right? The same Favre who suddenly had his 3rd highest yardage total of his career after his worst season ever... The same Favre who suddenly had the highest completion percentage of his entire career, right?? The same Favre who had his third highest QB rating of his career, right???

Yeah, that guy? You really think that suddenly at 38 years old and coming off his WORST YEAR EVER he suddenly got that good again? I love Brett Favre, I have spent 16 years cheering him on and, honestly, thinking about the Packers without him still feels wrong to me... But if you really think that every win last year was about Favre and not about that young, talented team that was put around him, you're crazy and either have no clue what you are talking about or didn't actually watch a game, rather you just listened to what Madden thought of the Packers...

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

yes and no...See, you need to remember that I've spent 16 years watching Brett Favre make crappy players better...

Bill Schroeder, Antonio Freeman... He made them...

Dorsey Levens... Edgar Bennett...

The only guys (not including guys like Rison he only had for half a season) who an argument could even be made for as being better than Jennings that Favre has ever had is Robert Brooks (and that's iffy) and Sterling Sharpe (and there is no shame in Sharpe being better than you)...

I would say the same thing of Jones...

Maybe Green is better than Grant is... and, honestly, I'm pretty sure Green is the only one better than Jackson & Wynn, too...

So could Favre have made them better? A little bit, yeah... But all he really did, at most, was shorten thier learning curve in the NFL... Because they actually are talented...

Oh yeah, plus the fact that Favre in 2007 was no where near as good as Favre in 1997...

I agree with you but I think we differ here. I do not think Favre is good enough to make players around him better anymore. Look at the 4-12 year, who did he make better. If I remember correctly he was one of the biggest problems.A player’s skills diminish with age, that is the way it is.

that's what I was saying...That Favre really didn't make Jennings & Grant, etc. look better...

 

[Joe Bryant]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was thinking more along the lines of Dodds telling you that he was retiring in late winter. You cancel other projects and focus on rebuilding the organization. Maybe go as far as to promote Chase and Aaron into full time positions and they quit other interests because of the promotion. Then in late July Dodds tells you that he's coming back for one more season and that you need to reshuffle your organizational plan to accomodate him.

That's a great example. I do a back flip and welcome David the second I think I could get him back. Actually, I do more than that. I do everything I can in the relationship to never let him get to the point of quitting.And I love Chase and Aaron. And I think they love me. But they both will tell you in a second that David and I have a different relationship.J

Not when Dodds has been saying that he's unsure he's going to be coming back each year. After awhile, no matter how good Dodds is...it wears thin for running the organization. Chase, Aaron and whoever would only play the seesaw game so many times before they wanted out. So, it's not a matter of the one time it's the uncertainty of knowing if Dodds is committed or not and all the hoops you jump through....each time.

How long is Rodgers signed for?J

 

[Phase of the Game]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

He actually has some nice arm strength from what I have seen...and his deeper balls have looked decent so far.Worthy to note he had his best practices of the year Wednesday...after Favre left for Mississippi.

I stand corrected: http://football.about.com/b/2005/02/13/sco...-california.htm. I must have misremembered.The ultimate question regards winning today, and TODAY...right this second...given what we KNOW, Favre unquestionably gives the Packers the best chance at success in 2008 because you know if he gets hit, he'll get up unaffected. That's the wildcard with Rodgers, will he get up unaffected or will he start peeking at the pass rush when he should be focusing down-field?

I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..

I agree that Favre probably gave them the best chance to win "this year".But that does not make it the best decision for the ball club.

So you must be very confident that Rodgers will want to stay in GB and not leave when he can become a free agent to escape Favre's shadow?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was thinking more along the lines of Dodds telling you that he was retiring in late winter. You cancel other projects and focus on rebuilding the organization. Maybe go as far as to promote Chase and Aaron into full time positions and they quit other interests because of the promotion. Then in late July Dodds tells you that he's coming back for one more season and that you need to reshuffle your organizational plan to accomodate him.

That's a great example. I do a back flip and welcome David the second I think I could get him back. Actually, I do more than that. I do everything I can in the relationship to never let him get to the point of quitting.And I love Chase and Aaron. And I think they love me. But they both will tell you in a second that David and I have a different relationship.J

Not when Dodds has been saying that he's unsure he's going to be coming back each year. After awhile, no matter how good Dodds is...it wears thin for running the organization. Chase, Aaron and whoever would only play the seesaw game so many times before they wanted out. So, it's not a matter of the one time it's the uncertainty of knowing if Dodds is committed or not and all the hoops you jump through....each time.

How long is Rodgers signed for?J

How's this Joe...imagine the same scenario with David retiring and you making Chase & Aaron full-time and then David coming back...but imagine that in order for David to come back, Chase & Aaron were for sure, 100% leaving...and the only reason that they are leaving is because David quit and then decided to come back...Does that change what you think about David coming back any?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

He actually has some nice arm strength from what I have seen...and his deeper balls have looked decent so far.Worthy to note he had his best practices of the year Wednesday...after Favre left for Mississippi.

I stand corrected: http://football.about.com/b/2005/02/13/sco...-california.htm. I must have misremembered.The ultimate question regards winning today, and TODAY...right this second...given what we KNOW, Favre unquestionably gives the Packers the best chance at success in 2008 because you know if he gets hit, he'll get up unaffected. That's the wildcard with Rodgers, will he get up unaffected or will he start peeking at the pass rush when he should be focusing down-field?

I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..

I agree that Favre probably gave them the best chance to win "this year".But that does not make it the best decision for the ball club.

So you must be very confident that Rodgers will want to stay in GB and not leave when he can become a free agent to escape Favre's shadow?

most people who know what they are talking about are pretty confident that Rodgers is staying because there has been absolutely no indication from him or anyone else that leaving is even a thought in his mind...Plus if he does leave we still have Brohm, who will be a third year player then...

 

[Phase of the Game]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

He actually has some nice arm strength from what I have seen...and his deeper balls have looked decent so far.Worthy to note he had his best practices of the year Wednesday...after Favre left for Mississippi.

I stand corrected: http://football.about.com/b/2005/02/13/sco...-california.htm. I must have misremembered.The ultimate question regards winning today, and TODAY...right this second...given what we KNOW, Favre unquestionably gives the Packers the best chance at success in 2008 because you know if he gets hit, he'll get up unaffected. That's the wildcard with Rodgers, will he get up unaffected or will he start peeking at the pass rush when he should be focusing down-field?

I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..

I agree that Favre probably gave them the best chance to win "this year".But that does not make it the best decision for the ball club.

So you must be very confident that Rodgers will want to stay in GB and not leave when he can become a free agent to escape Favre's shadow?

most people who know what they are talking about are pretty confident that Rodgers is staying because there has been absolutely no indication from him or anyone else that leaving is even a thought in his mind...Plus if he does leave we still have Brohm, who will be a third year player then...

Most people who know what they are talking about know that Rodgers isn't going to say anything about leaving at this point. I'm just curious if anyone has concerns that Rodgers may get fed up with how he may be treated as the season goes on and decide to leave when he becomes a free agent.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I started off thinking it was "New Coke" bad.Someone else suggested MS Vista bad. That's probably better. New Coke is pretty harsh...J

I was thinking more along the lines of Dodds telling you that he was retiring in late winter. You cancel other projects and focus on rebuilding the organization. Maybe go as far as to promote Chase and Aaron into full time positions and they quit other interests because of the promotion. Then in late July Dodds tells you that he's coming back for one more season and that you need to reshuffle your organizational plan to accomodate him.

That's a great example. I do a back flip and welcome David the second I think I could get him back. Actually, I do more than that. I do everything I can in the relationship to never let him get to the point of quitting.And I love Chase and Aaron. And I think they love me. But they both will tell you in a second that David and I have a different relationship.J

Not when Dodds has been saying that he's unsure he's going to be coming back each year. After awhile, no matter how good Dodds is...it wears thin for running the organization. Chase, Aaron and whoever would only play the seesaw game so many times before they wanted out. So, it's not a matter of the one time it's the uncertainty of knowing if Dodds is committed or not and all the hoops you jump through....each time.

How long is Rodgers signed for?J

How's this Joe...imagine the same scenario with David retiring and you making Chase & Aaron full-time and then David coming back...but imagine that in order for David to come back, Chase & Aaron were for sure, 100% leaving...and the only reason that they are leaving is because David quit and then decided to come back...Does that change what you think about David coming back any?

This works better if it's remotely similar to the Green Bay situation.How long is Rodgers signed for?J

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that Favre made every one of those guys look better? I don't think anyone outside of fantasy football or Green Bay would even know who Ryan Grant or Greg Jennings were if it wasn't for Favre.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.

The game planning against Rodgers is going to be pretty easy compared to Favre. Rodgers cannot beat teams over the top like Favre could. Rodgers cannot throw the accurate long ball over a 30-40 yard toss. Rodgers will have to pick apart the defenses in the first few weeks before teams start to relax on teeing up on him. If McCarthy is smart, he will have Rodgers taking many 3-step drops and some 5-step drops otherwise the Packers are doomed. Grant is the key variable. If he can run with 6 and 7 in the box consistently, that will open up the passing game. The game planning from Favre to Rodgers is night and day.

Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?

That's been his knock since draft day, but in a west-coast offense the deep ball is not THAT important--Rex Grossman throws a beautiful deep ball. I think it's the long outs that have the most potential for disaster and is probably partly what GB is referring to when they say they've customized the offense around Rodgers in the offseason. I think you'll see a ton of short slants, seams, and fade routes, which if completed often is as demoralizing to a defense as a smash-mouth running game. He's got a shot, but I'm giving him 50/50 at best to have a passer rating of +80 this season.

He actually has some nice arm strength from what I have seen...and his deeper balls have looked decent so far.Worthy to note he had his best practices of the year Wednesday...after Favre left for Mississippi.

I stand corrected: http://football.about.com/b/2005/02/13/sco...-california.htm. I must have misremembered.The ultimate question regards winning today, and TODAY...right this second...given what we KNOW, Favre unquestionably gives the Packers the best chance at success in 2008 because you know if he gets hit, he'll get up unaffected. That's the wildcard with Rodgers, will he get up unaffected or will he start peeking at the pass rush when he should be focusing down-field?

I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..

I agree that Favre probably gave them the best chance to win "this year".But that does not make it the best decision for the ball club.

So you must be very confident that Rodgers will want to stay in GB and not leave when he can become a free agent to escape Favre's shadow?

most people who know what they are talking about are pretty confident that Rodgers is staying

That must disqualify you considering you think the Packers did nothing to show Favre any disrespect.