Aaron Rodgers Bandwagon (1 Viewer)

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

This thread could turn out to be a train wreck in the making, but I'm getting on board before it leaves the station on Aaron Rodgers. To me, this situation screams common sense and the ability to read between the lines.

As I look at it, the Green Bay Packers are one of the top 3 teams in the NFC and have a serious shot at making the Super Bowl. They have terrific talent on the offense, a solid defense and play in a relatively week division.

I look at that and if I'm in charge of a team in that situation and I have a chance to bring back Brett Farve, a legend in Green Bay you'd think they'd jump at the chance, wipe their foreheads clean with the back of their hands and say "Thank God, he's back!"

They aren't doing that. Why! Are they crazy? What might lead them to do such a thing.

After you get over the crazy idea that Green Bay doesn't want Brett Farve on the team, is it possible that as good as Brett Farve was last year, could they have someone better at QB on the same team?

Aaron Rodgers, a highly drafted QB has watched and learned now for years. We didn't know anything about his professional game because Farve doesn't miss games. However, we saw a glimpse of Rodgers ability last season on a Thursday night. The Dallas defense was all over Farve and eventually he got knocked out. I thought it might be only a matter of time before this guy was knocked out too but he came in on fire. In one of the most highly anticipated regular season games, played on a Thursday night this guy came in and looked like the best player on the field for the time he was in the game.

That's all we saw, Farve was back next week. Now, it was only 3/4 of a game we saw him and there's been QB's who've done similar things in the past that didn't work out full time, Scott Mitchell comes to mind as he played decent in Miami in relief and then signed with Detroit for big money and was absolutely horrible.

However, this guy isn't leaving the team or system. This guy was drafted very highly, he's not a guy who came out of nowhere, he has the pedigree.

I think the coaches and the Green Bay Packers know what they have. I can't imagine this guy not being a potential Pro Bowl QB for the NFC with Brett Farve asking to come back to play for the Packers when they're knocking on the door for a championship.

Right now, it's a little scary to draft either guy really. However, I'm looking past that and I see a guy who's being drafted mid 9th round and later who's a potential 3800 and 30 TD QB passer. I was drafting last night and it was the 9th round and I finally said it's time to make a stand on this guy. Common sense tells me he's going to have a very good year. I am obviously not a Packer fan but love to find value in fantasy football drafts and I think right now Aaron Rodgers oozes value.

Get on board before the train leaves. What do you think, do you want to wait until he throws for 325 yards and 4 Td's versus the Lions before you're allowed to proclaim he might be good or do you want to ride up here in the front of the train, in first class sipping on champagne.........out of the bottle baby!

Week 1 Results:

 

[Osaurus]

Waiting to see what he does over first 4 games of regular season to make judgement.

 

[aburt19]

I still think that there are questions about his durability. He has barely played in the NFL. In one game I think he suffered a broken bone in his foot. Last

season on the Tuesday after the Dallas game he pulled a hamstring and was ruled out for at least two weeks. Favre was coming back to play that week, so

it wasn't a big problem. But given the small amount of time that he's played, I have a real concern about whether he can remain healthy.

IF, and that's a big if, he remains healthy, he'll be okay. But I don't expect him to match the numbers that Favre had last year.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Waiting to see what he does over first 4 games of regular season to make judgement.

Sweet, you'll be riding in the caboose then! I'll send you a complimentary bottled water after I finish passing out the champagne up here.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I still think that there are questions about his durability. He has barely played in the NFL. In one game I think he suffered a broken bone in his foot. Lastseason on the Tuesday after the Dallas game he pulled a hamstring and was ruled out for at least two weeks. Favre was coming back to play that week, soit wasn't a big problem. But given the small amount of time that he's played, I have a real concern about whether he can remain healthy.IF, and that's a big if, he remains healthy, he'll be okay. But I don't expect him to match the numbers that Favre had last year.

Of course there are questions, but the guy is a man like anyone else. He's made out of the same stuff as all the other QB's are and he knows who's footsteps he's following. He isn't going to sit out unless he's seriously injured as he knows exactly what would be said if he did end up getting hurt.I also think the entire team, especially the offense will know the kind of pressure this guy will be under and I think they bend over backwards trying to play at an elite level for this guy all season long.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've been on board for some time now.

 

[Phurfur]

I am on board with Rodgers as a Packer fan but FF (redraft) wise would not feel comfortable with him as my #1 QB unless I had a good BU. I feel the biggest ? about him is his health but if he stays healthy he could be a great value this year.

 

[Phurfur]

I still think that there are questions about his durability. He has barely played in the NFL. In one game I think he suffered a broken bone in his foot. Last

season on the Tuesday after the Dallas game he pulled a hamstring and was ruled out for at least two weeks. Favre was coming back to play that week, so

it wasn't a big problem. But given the small amount of time that he's played, I have a real concern about whether he can remain healthy.

IF, and that's a big if, he remains healthy, he'll be okay. But I don't expect him to match the numbers that Favre had last year.

Of course there are questions, but the guy is a man like anyone else. He's made out of the same stuff as all the other QB's are and he knows who's footsteps he's following. He isn't going to sit out unless he's seriously injured as he knows exactly what would be said if he did end up getting hurt.I also think the entire team, especially the offense will know the kind of pressure this guy will be under and I think they bend over backwards trying to play at an elite level for this guy all season long.

The game he broke his leg/foot ? he finished the game on it so I tend to agree with you.

 

[ookook]

I have learned not to put much faith into QBs who have not started any games.

I think he will be okay, but review the stats from the first 10 starts of even great QBs and many are not that good.

Most telling to me right now: Rodgers has taken a sack once in every 7 attempts (compared to Favre once in every 40 or so). That will lose football games. He will be better after reps with 1st team, but still may be a problem.

 

[Routilla]

Too much pressure on Rodgers with Favre coming back. He'll have to be perfect to keep the media off of him and I don't think he can do it with Favre waiting in the wings.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

Rodgers is a sack machine - David Carr would be jealous. Green Bay may be calling Favre off his tractor in week 3 because Rodgers is out with a separated shoulder.

 

[Phurfur]

I have learned not to put much faith into QBs who have not started any games.

I think he will be okay, but review the stats from the first 10 starts of even great QBs and many are not that good.

Most telling to me right now: Rodgers has taken a sack once in every 7 attempts (compared to Favre once in every 40 or so). That will lose football games. He will be better after reps with 1st team, but still may be a problem.

I agree with you only in Rodgers case he is starting his 4th year and is not a rookie. There is a difference. As far as the sack situation, most of his playing time was in the Dallas game when they were behind and the Cowboys knew they had to pass. He actually did a nice job in that game, but I do think he will take more sacks than Favre but will also throw fewer interceptions.

 

[dmac37]

Waiting to see what he does over first 4 games of regular season to make judgement.

Sweet, you'll be riding in the caboose then! I'll send you a complimentary bottled water after I finish passing out the champagne up here.

For the money I love the combo of Rodgers/ Brohm. With the Packers system and the group of quality young WR's, one of these guys will be a top QB for years to come. I grabbed Rodgers dirt cheap in a start up dynasty last year predicting the Favre retirement and also invested in him this year in another dynasty start up, also picked up Brohm in both as insurance.The key to dynasty is to set a foundation with a few solid studs and then hit with a high enough % of young players before they bust out.

 

[ookook]

Also, I think folks are putting too much faith in the Pachers rushing game. I know I am a minority (no need Sho, no need), but I was pretty aghast through the first 8 or 9 games last season how poor it was. Everyone thinks Grant was the savior of the running game, I think Favre shares those kudos.

I look for it to struggle which is not doing a young QB any favors.

 

[ookook]

I have learned not to put much faith into QBs who have not started any games.

I think he will be okay, but review the stats from the first 10 starts of even great QBs and many are not that good.

Most telling to me right now: Rodgers has taken a sack once in every 7 attempts (compared to Favre once in every 40 or so). That will lose football games. He will be better after reps with 1st team, but still may be a problem.

I agree with you only in Rodgers case he is starting his 4th year and is not a rookie. There is a difference. As far as the sack situation, most of his playing time was in the Dallas game when they were behind and the Cowboys knew they had to pass. He actually did a nice job in that game, but I do think he will take more sacks than Favre but will also throw fewer interceptions.

I agree that part of the reason Favre didn't take sacks is he was willing to throw places he shouldn't. Both need to learn to throw it out of bounds.

 

[Banger]

I'm skeptical. Also, do the Packers have a lot of talent on offense? Ryan Grant, good but how much of an impact did Favre have on the defenses to give him the lanes to run. Where would he rank talent wise among NFL RB's 20+, 30+? Jennings - good young wr, Driver - solid vet, some good depth wr's, average TE, decent line. The Pack have a very solid D but their offense was and has been supported heavily by Favre. The Pack are in the middle of the pack in offensive talent IMO.

A very overlooked part of Favre's game is how few sacks he took year after year even over the past few years when their line was not good. Last year he finished tied for 3rd with 19 (Brees #1 - 16), '06 - tied for 5th, '05 tied for 5th, '04 tied for 1st. In one half of football Rodgers took 3 sacks against the Cowboys. We'll see how it works out but I think Favre's impact to make players/o-line look a lot better than they are are being minimized.

ETA...ookook didn't see your sack related posts but I agree completely and many people don't think about those things and took for granted how good Favre was at avoiding sacks and keeping the team in good down/distances.

 

[Phurfur]

Rodgers is a sack machine - David Carr would be jealous. Green Bay may be calling Favre off his tractor in week 3 because Rodgers is out with a separated shoulder.

It is very dangerous to draw conclusions from a small/limited about of data.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.

I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.

And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?

I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."

Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...

But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.

All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

 

[Jeff Haseley]

Rodgers is a sack machine - David Carr would be jealous. Green Bay may be calling Favre off his tractor in week 3 because Rodgers is out with a separated shoulder.

It is very dangerous to draw conclusions from a small/limited about of data.

But every chance he's had an opportunity to get on the field, he's been sacked - a lot. And that's not even including full games.

 

[Banger]

Rodgers is a sack machine - David Carr would be jealous. Green Bay may be calling Favre off his tractor in week 3 because Rodgers is out with a separated shoulder.

It is very dangerous to draw conclusions from a small/limited about of data.

Agreed but people are making conclusions/projections largely on his Dallas play to try and prove that he will be able to step right and lead the team to another big season.

 

[Banger]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Prior to 2007 Favre's decline was due to the fact that he had absolute garbage for wr's and was forced to force it to Driver on every other pass, a horrid line, no RB - A. Green was injured, bad TE's, so it's hard to fault Favre. He was able to hold the fort for a couple years while they turned over their roster with a bunch of younger guys and then you get what you got last year.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

His game log shows 7 regular season appearances since 2005, his rookie year. He has been sacked 9 times in those 7 appearances and in most cases, he was only in for a quarter, maybe two. Two of those seven appearances he was in for a snap only. Essentially, he has been sacked 9 times in five appearances, totaling less than 8 quarters.

 

[Banger]

His game log shows 7 regular season appearances since 2005, his rookie year. He has been sacked 9 times in those 7 appearances and in most cases, he was only in for a quarter, maybe two. Two of those seven appearances he was in for a snap only. Essentially, he has been sacked 9 times in five appearances, totaling less than 8 quarters.

Also, he hasn't been the model of health in his limited play and getting sacked at a high rate obviously won't help him stay healthy.

 

[Osaurus]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.

I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.

And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?

I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."

Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...

But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.

All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Brian Griese was awesome after Elway retired!!!

 

[Andy Dufresne]

His game log shows 7 regular season appearances since 2005, his rookie year. He has been sacked 9 times in those 7 appearances and in most cases, he was only in for a quarter, maybe two. Two of those seven appearances he was in for a snap only. Essentially, he has been sacked 9 times in five appearances, totaling less than 8 quarters.

Yes, but those 9 sacks came in three games:2005 - Week 15 at Baltimore, when their defense was still quite a force he was sacked three times. The Packers were a 4-12 team that year. Is there any shame in a rookie QB playing for one of the worst teams in the league getting sacked three times by the NFL's 8th ranked sack defense?

2006 - Week 11 vs. New England - Again sacked three times in a 35-0 blowout. New England was the 5th ranked sack defense

2007 - Week 13 vs. Dallas - Three times versus the NFL's 3rd ranked sack defense.

So while you may very well be right that he takes too many sacks, I don't know how you can make that assertion simply based on the sample size we have to work with.

 

[Phurfur]

Rodgers is a sack machine - David Carr would be jealous. Green Bay may be calling Favre off his tractor in week 3 because Rodgers is out with a separated shoulder.

It is very dangerous to draw conclusions from a small/limited about of data.

But every chance he's had an opportunity to get on the field, he's been sacked - a lot. And that's not even including full games.

Every game he played in the Packers were getting pounded, even the great Brett Favre was knocked out of these games. So what is your point.

 

[Banger]

His game log shows 7 regular season appearances since 2005, his rookie year. He has been sacked 9 times in those 7 appearances and in most cases, he was only in for a quarter, maybe two. Two of those seven appearances he was in for a snap only. Essentially, he has been sacked 9 times in five appearances, totaling less than 8 quarters.

Yes, but those 9 sacks came in three games:2005 - Week 15 at Baltimore, when their defense was still quite a force he was sacked three times. The Packers were a 4-12 team that year. Is there any shame in a rookie QB playing for one of the worst teams in the league getting sacked three times by the NFL's 8th ranked sack defense?

2006 - Week 11 vs. New England - Again sacked three times in a 35-0 blowout. New England was the 5th ranked sack defense

2007 - Week 13 vs. Dallas - Three times versus the NFL's 3rd ranked sack defense.

So while you may very well be right that he takes too many sacks, I don't know how you can make that assertion simply based on the sample size we have to work with.

He wasn't making an assertion he was posting facts (at least in the above post). What you draw from those stats is anther matter. You're info provides some good context though...still it's a lot of sacks in limited play.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

Rodgers is a sack machine - David Carr would be jealous. Green Bay may be calling Favre off his tractor in week 3 because Rodgers is out with a separated shoulder.

It is very dangerous to draw conclusions from a small/limited about of data.

But every chance he's had an opportunity to get on the field, he's been sacked - a lot. And that's not even including full games.

Every game he played in the Packers were getting pounded, even the great Brett Favre was knocked out of these games. So what is your point.

My point is he winds up on his back side quite often. An increase in sacks = more of a chance to get injured. There's no talking your way around 9 sacks in less than 8 quarters. Sure he may have come in at a bad time, but that doesn't excuse him for not making a play. A sack is not just a blown play, it makes the next play even harder. I'm saying if Rodgers has a propensity for being sacked, it's not good for his health or his offense.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

His game log shows 7 regular season appearances since 2005, his rookie year. He has been sacked 9 times in those 7 appearances and in most cases, he was only in for a quarter, maybe two. Two of those seven appearances he was in for a snap only. Essentially, he has been sacked 9 times in five appearances, totaling less than 8 quarters.

Yes, but those 9 sacks came in three games:2005 - Week 15 at Baltimore, when their defense was still quite a force he was sacked three times. The Packers were a 4-12 team that year. Is there any shame in a rookie QB playing for one of the worst teams in the league getting sacked three times by the NFL's 8th ranked sack defense?

2006 - Week 11 vs. New England - Again sacked three times in a 35-0 blowout. New England was the 5th ranked sack defense

2007 - Week 13 vs. Dallas - Three times versus the NFL's 3rd ranked sack defense.

So while you may very well be right that he takes too many sacks, I don't know how you can make that assertion simply based on the sample size we have to work with.

He wasn't making an assertion he was posting facts (at least in the above post). What you draw from those stats is anther matter. You're info provides some good context though...still it's a lot of sacks in limited play.

I thought he was making that assertion when he said this a couple posts up:

But every chance he's had an opportunity to get on the field, he's been sacked - a lot. And that's not even including full games.

Maybe not.

 

[smackdaddies]

Too much pressure on Rodgers with Favre coming back. He'll have to be perfect to keep the media off of him and I don't think he can do it with Favre waiting in the wings.

Money quote there. If Farve gets gone soon, I think the team can make it happen and he could have a decent season (decent as in top 8-15 FF wise).If it is a circus through TC (or even into the season), I think the entire organization could go into a serious funk - not so much AR but the whole team. As much as I hate to say it, they guy who predicted a 1-6 start on these boards could be right if that happens. Toss in the RB situation not getting settled....

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Rodgers is a sack machine - David Carr would be jealous. Green Bay may be calling Favre off his tractor in week 3 because Rodgers is out with a separated shoulder.

It is very dangerous to draw conclusions from a small/limited about of data.

But every chance he's had an opportunity to get on the field, he's been sacked - a lot. And that's not even including full games.

Every game he played in the Packers were getting pounded, even the great Brett Favre was knocked out of these games. So what is your point.

My point is he winds up on his back side quite often. An increase in sacks = more of a chance to get injured. There's no talking your way around 9 sacks in less than 8 quarters. Sure he may have come in at a bad time, but that doesn't excuse him for not making a play. A sack is not just a blown play, it makes the next play even harder. I'm saying if Rodgers has a propensity for being sacked, it's not good for his health or his offense.

Of course there is a way to talk around that and there is an excuse. I'm sure the coaches drilled into him that it's better to take a sack than an interception.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.

I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.

And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?

I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."

Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...

But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.

All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Brian Griese was awesome after Elway retired!!!

Jeff Garcia was pretty good thoughETA: Griese made the Pro Bowl in 2000

 

[Banger]

Another thing to consider...A. Rodgers has never been gameplanned for by an opposing defense. You can be sure that teams are going to throw the blitz sink at him until he can prove he can read and make the right decisions. Teams tended not to do that as much against Favre due to his ability to see/pick up the blitz and had the ability/guts to burn the defense.

Also, in their first 9 games they play Minn, Det, Dall, TB, Atl, Sea, Indy, Tenn, Minn. The only cream puffs are Atl and Det. TB, Indy, Dall, Tenn were all top 10 and Minn is sure to be this year so that's 6 tough defenses in their first 9 games and Sea is solid. If Chicago returns to form on defense they'll end up facing a lot of tough defenses next year.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.

Steve Young did OK after Montanta left.I don't believe that he'll fail because of the pressure.......either the guy has the goods or he doesn't at this point. Sure there's pressure but there's pressure on a lot of guys. There's pressure on guys like Tony Romo.....if they're good they'll handle it.Could you imagine the pressure Steve Young had following Montana? It didn't matter, the guy was a HOFer himself.I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.All this sack machine stuff, I don't know what to say. I think he'll learn as he goes to do certain things better. I think all the great ones did themselves.I also think when a backup QB enters the game, don't you think defenses in general get after that QB a little more than they would the starter? Bring blitzes etc....to see if the guy can handle it. The more experience he has in those situations, the more he'll burn these defenses and the less often you'll see them bringing the heat.I could see Jenkins getting some long Td's early in the season if the plan of opposing defenses is still blitz this guy early. Word is he's got a cannon and I know Jenkins can run.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Another thing to consider...A. Rodgers has never been gameplanned for by an opposing defense. You can be sure that teams are going to throw the blitz sink at him until he can prove he can read and make the right decisions. Teams tended not to do that as much against Favre due to his ability to see/pick up the blitz and had the ability/guts to burn the defense.Also, in their first 9 games they play Minn, Det, Dall, TB, Atl, Sea, Indy, Tenn, Minn. The only cream puffs are Atl and Det. TB, Indy, Dall, Tenn were all top 10 and Minn is sure to be this year so that's 6 tough defenses in their first 9 games and Sea is solid. If Chicago returns to form on defense they'll end up facing a lot of tough defenses next year.

The more defenses blitz, the better his numbers in fantasy football will be IMO.

 

[Banger]

Another thing to consider...A. Rodgers has never been gameplanned for by an opposing defense. You can be sure that teams are going to throw the blitz sink at him until he can prove he can read and make the right decisions. Teams tended not to do that as much against Favre due to his ability to see/pick up the blitz and had the ability/guts to burn the defense.Also, in their first 9 games they play Minn, Det, Dall, TB, Atl, Sea, Indy, Tenn, Minn. The only cream puffs are Atl and Det. TB, Indy, Dall, Tenn were all top 10 and Minn is sure to be this year so that's 6 tough defenses in their first 9 games and Sea is solid. If Chicago returns to form on defense they'll end up facing a lot of tough defenses next year.

The more defenses blitz, the better his numbers in fantasy football will be IMO.

I don't know about that, it could also lead to getting huge hits, sacks and int's. It all depends on how he deals with the blitz. Will he be Eli Manning and get flustered and throw off his back foot? Will he turtle like Carr? Or will he confidently stand in the pocket, look for and hit the open WR? This will be the difference between a good and bad season in GB IMO.

 

[Banger]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason. If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

 

[sho nuff]

Also, I think folks are putting too much faith in the Pachers rushing game. I know I am a minority (no need Sho, no need), but I was pretty aghast through the first 8 or 9 games last season how poor it was. Everyone thinks Grant was the savior of the running game, I think Favre shares those kudos.I look for it to struggle which is not doing a young QB any favors.

The first 5-6 games they were bad...other than the Chicago game.After that...it was some Grant...but some credit has to be given to the Oline.Especially when you figure in that this is Colledge and Spitz 3rd years int he league...and Wells with them as the 3rd year that the interior linemen are starting (if Colledge holds off Barbre for the G spot. (hah!!!). Meaning...year 3 of an intact line. Also year 3 of the zone blocking scheme up there. And they have improved over each of the last 2 seasons.Not that there is not more room for improvement. But I think they are coming along.

 

[Phurfur]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.

So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason.

If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

I also believe they know they can't win a SB with Favre so why not move on?

 

[sho nuff]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Prior to 2007 Favre's decline was due to the fact that he had absolute garbage for wr's and was forced to force it to Driver on every other pass, a horrid line, no RB - A. Green was injured, bad TE's, so it's hard to fault Favre. He was able to hold the fort for a couple years while they turned over their roster with a bunch of younger guys and then you get what you got last year.

But wait...you just said they now only had average offensive talent?Cannot excuse Favre for the bad years because of no talent but saying he looked better when he had talent around him...and then question that talent that was around him.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.

So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason.

If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

If the bolded is true.....then whoever is in charge of not bringing Farve back should lose his job. If I'm a Packer fan, paying big money to attend games weekly, if I'm a player on the Packers who dedicates my life to trying to be the best and win a championship and the Packers aren't trying to give themselves the best chance to win this year when they're so close, I'd be disgusted.Seriously, if they believe that Farve is the best player for this year and they're not taking it.....they're morons. I mean it, you don't stay on top forever in this league and to assume they'll be this good in a couple years is selling a lot of other people short.

In the end, I don't believe they think that. I think they know what they have in Rodgers which led me to post my initial post.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.

So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason.

If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

If the bolded is true.....then whoever is in charge of not bringing Farve back should lose his job. If I'm a Packer fan, paying big money to attend games weekly, if I'm a player on the Packers who dedicates my life to trying to be the best and win a championship and the Packers aren't trying to give themselves the best chance to win this year when they're so close, I'd be disgusted.Seriously, if they believe that Farve is the best player for this year and they're not taking it.....they're morons. I mean it, you don't stay on top forever in this league and to assume they'll be this good in a couple years is selling a lot of other people short.

In the end, I don't believe they think that. I think they know what they have in Rodgers which led me to post my initial post.

No...because the person in charge does not just think about THIS year only. That is not his job. The executive committee, the stockholders, and most knowledgeable fans realize this.

 

[Phurfur]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.

So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason.

If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

If the bolded is true.....then whoever is in charge of not bringing Farve back should lose his job. If I'm a Packer fan, paying big money to attend games weekly, if I'm a player on the Packers who dedicates my life to trying to be the best and win a championship and the Packers aren't trying to give themselves the best chance to win this year when they're so close, I'd be disgusted.Seriously, if they believe that Farve is the best player for this year and they're not taking it.....they're morons. I mean it, you don't stay on top forever in this league and to assume they'll be this good in a couple years is selling a lot of other people short.

In the end, I don't believe they think that. I think they know what they have in Rodgers which led me to post my initial post.

I am a Packer season ticket holder and am 100% behind Rodgers. I am sick of Farve with all his records and only 1 SB. Go away Brett you are not as big a Packer legend as you think, you don't even make top 5 in my book.

 

[Banger]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Prior to 2007 Favre's decline was due to the fact that he had absolute garbage for wr's and was forced to force it to Driver on every other pass, a horrid line, no RB - A. Green was injured, bad TE's, so it's hard to fault Favre. He was able to hold the fort for a couple years while they turned over their roster with a bunch of younger guys and then you get what you got last year.

But wait...you just said they now only had average offensive talent?Cannot excuse Favre for the bad years because of no talent but saying he looked better when he had talent around him...and then question that talent that was around him.

Sure, he took average talent to NFC Championship game. He has no elite talent on the offensive side of the ball, not the line, wr, TE or RB. I wasn't excusing him for the bad years and he doesn't need excusing I was referring to his int's. He finished 14th and 9th in fantasy points and threw for nearly 3900 yards in both years with 20 and 18 td passes the reasons the int's were so high was due to the terrible players. C'mon you are a knowledgable Packer fan and I know you are getting behind the new guy but you can't tell me that their talent wasn't HORRIBLE for '05/'06 on the offensive side of the ball.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.

So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason.

If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

If the bolded is true.....then whoever is in charge of not bringing Farve back should lose his job. If I'm a Packer fan, paying big money to attend games weekly, if I'm a player on the Packers who dedicates my life to trying to be the best and win a championship and the Packers aren't trying to give themselves the best chance to win this year when they're so close, I'd be disgusted.Seriously, if they believe that Farve is the best player for this year and they're not taking it.....they're morons. I mean it, you don't stay on top forever in this league and to assume they'll be this good in a couple years is selling a lot of other people short.

In the end, I don't believe they think that. I think they know what they have in Rodgers which led me to post my initial post.

No...because the person in charge does not just think about THIS year only. That is not his job. The executive committee, the stockholders, and most knowledgeable fans realize this.

Rodgers is still on the team, he's not going anywhere. He may be disappointed if Farve comes back for 1 more year and even think he might want to go somewhere else but as soon as you throw some dollars in front of him to stay in Green Bay, he'll stay. So, Rodgers would be there this year and next year or whatever year. If you think Farve gives you the best shot to win a SB this year and he's under contract, they're morons if they don't bring him back.

Unless of course you think Rodgers is just as good or better and it's not worth bringing Farve back.

 

[Banger]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.

So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason.

If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

If the bolded is true.....then whoever is in charge of not bringing Farve back should lose his job. If I'm a Packer fan, paying big money to attend games weekly, if I'm a player on the Packers who dedicates my life to trying to be the best and win a championship and the Packers aren't trying to give themselves the best chance to win this year when they're so close, I'd be disgusted.Seriously, if they believe that Farve is the best player for this year and they're not taking it.....they're morons. I mean it, you don't stay on top forever in this league and to assume they'll be this good in a couple years is selling a lot of other people short.

In the end, I don't believe they think that. I think they know what they have in Rodgers which led me to post my initial post.

Thompson is in a tough spot. Do you take one more year of Favre and let Rodgers walk or do you give Rodgers a shot and possibly have their QB for the next decade?

 

[Phurfur]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.

I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.

And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?

I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."

Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...

But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.

All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Prior to 2007 Favre's decline was due to the fact that he had absolute garbage for wr's and was forced to force it to Driver on every other pass, a horrid line, no RB - A. Green was injured, bad TE's, so it's hard to fault Favre. He was able to hold the fort for a couple years while they turned over their roster with a bunch of younger guys and then you get what you got last year.

But wait...you just said they now only had average offensive talent?Cannot excuse Favre for the bad years because of no talent but saying he looked better when he had talent around him...and then question that talent that was around him.

Sure, he took average talent to NFC Championship game. He has no elite talent on the offensive side of the ball, not the line, wr, TE or RB. I wasn't excusing him for the bad years and he doesn't need excusing I was referring to his int's. He finished 14th and 9th in fantasy points and threw for nearly 3900 yards in both years with 20 and 18 td passes the reasons the int's were so high was due to the terrible players. C'mon you are a knowledgable Packer fan and I know you are getting behind the new guy but you can't tell me that their talent wasn't HORRIBLE for '05/'06 on the offensive side of the ball.

Does a "legend" need to blame his team for his Ints or is that how you become a legend? This is a very weak arguemnet.

 

[sho nuff]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Prior to 2007 Favre's decline was due to the fact that he had absolute garbage for wr's and was forced to force it to Driver on every other pass, a horrid line, no RB - A. Green was injured, bad TE's, so it's hard to fault Favre. He was able to hold the fort for a couple years while they turned over their roster with a bunch of younger guys and then you get what you got last year.

But wait...you just said they now only had average offensive talent?Cannot excuse Favre for the bad years because of no talent but saying he looked better when he had talent around him...and then question that talent that was around him.

Sure, he took average talent to NFC Championship game. He has no elite talent on the offensive side of the ball, not the line, wr, TE or RB. I wasn't excusing him for the bad years and he doesn't need excusing I was referring to his int's. He finished 14th and 9th in fantasy points and threw for nearly 3900 yards in both years with 20 and 18 td passes the reasons the int's were so high was due to the terrible players. C'mon you are a knowledgable Packer fan and I know you are getting behind the new guy but you can't tell me that their talent wasn't HORRIBLE for '05/'06 on the offensive side of the ball.

I completely disagree.Sorry...I think Jennings is still emerging but has shown he has quite a bit of talent...as does Driver.As did Grant.I think they are very talented, but older, at both tackle positions as well.The INTs were also due to his terrible decisions. Cannot blame the WRs for all of those.I never said the talent was good in those years...but I put the current talent above just "average" right now.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm going back to common sense. The Packers don't want Farve to play when they have a chance at a championship. That must mean they think they have a stud on their hands.

So, either they're the stupidest people in the NFL or they really know what they're doing. Since it's the Packers and not the Lions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there's a person in the Packer organization that believes Rodgers is better for GB this year than Favre is. This is more about the future than it is the present. Rodgers is a FA after this year and if Favre came back and became the starter this year they don't know enough about Rodgers to know whether or not he's their QB of the future and whether they should pay him. This allows the team to test drive him for a year to see what they have in their #1 pick.Also, I believe that when Favre told the team that he was going to retire they went out and drafted 2 qb's and altered their playbook around Rodgers. So players have been studying that book, practicing during the offseason and for Favre to come back now it throws a big wrinkle in their plans in terms of their playbook, possible morale on the team as well as their most recent draft. I also think that the Packers want to move on from the yearly will he won't retire game each offseason.

If at the end of last year Favre said he was coming back he would be the starting QB of the Pack without a doubt.

If the bolded is true.....then whoever is in charge of not bringing Farve back should lose his job. If I'm a Packer fan, paying big money to attend games weekly, if I'm a player on the Packers who dedicates my life to trying to be the best and win a championship and the Packers aren't trying to give themselves the best chance to win this year when they're so close, I'd be disgusted.Seriously, if they believe that Farve is the best player for this year and they're not taking it.....they're morons. I mean it, you don't stay on top forever in this league and to assume they'll be this good in a couple years is selling a lot of other people short.

In the end, I don't believe they think that. I think they know what they have in Rodgers which led me to post my initial post.

No...because the person in charge does not just think about THIS year only. That is not his job. The executive committee, the stockholders, and most knowledgeable fans realize this.

Rodgers is still on the team, he's not going anywhere. He may be disappointed if Farve comes back for 1 more year and even think he might want to go somewhere else but as soon as you throw some dollars in front of him to stay in Green Bay, he'll stay. So, Rodgers would be there this year and next year or whatever year. If you think Farve gives you the best shot to win a SB this year and he's under contract, they're morons if they don't bring him back.

Unless of course you think Rodgers is just as good or better and it's not worth bringing Farve back.

Rodgers is here now...with either this year...or one more left on his contract. Several places keep saying this is his last year, but I thought I remembered he signed a 5 year deal when he was drafted.But no...if Rodgers is sat down again...I don't think he would re-sign with GB...I think he would play out his deal and look to go elsewhere.

Again...I don't think they are morons...I think they are ensuring the long term success of the franchise and not just thinking one year at a time.

 

[Banger]

The old saying is, you don't want to be the guy who follows the legend. You want to be the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend.

I recognize that Rodgers was 1st rounder (and was under consideration for some time as the #1 overall pick), but to have to follow Brett Favre brings about challenges and scrutiny that while I can't speak to, are certainly present.

And if Favre is active somewhere in the NFL...?

I'll also say this...Rodgers has been very quiet on this whole Favre matter. He's stayed above the fray. But what would it have meant if he publicly came out and said "Brett - come to camp. Let's compete for this thing..."

Fact is, Rodgers has the organizations support, but in conversations/interviews you see with Rodgers - his stance is pretty much "I've been told I'm the starter". To me, that sounds fairly passive. It might be the tough thing to do, but IMO Rodgers has had an opportunity to stand up for himself and the organization and put some of this load on his shoulders. Is it possible that by challenging Favre or at least saying "I'm looking forward to competing for the starters role against Brett" that he could really find himself back on the bench? Absolutely...

But I think it would show some true guts and grit on his part and also show that he is ready to lead. Fact is, he could very well beat out Favre. Prior to 2007, Favre was in steep decline. Lots of veteran/older QB's have one last good/great season and then revert to playing at a subpar level.

All in all though, Rodgers has allowed others to fight in this battle while he's taken on an observers role even though it's his fate at stake. That is an indicator to me...

Prior to 2007 Favre's decline was due to the fact that he had absolute garbage for wr's and was forced to force it to Driver on every other pass, a horrid line, no RB - A. Green was injured, bad TE's, so it's hard to fault Favre. He was able to hold the fort for a couple years while they turned over their roster with a bunch of younger guys and then you get what you got last year.

But wait...you just said they now only had average offensive talent?Cannot excuse Favre for the bad years because of no talent but saying he looked better when he had talent around him...and then question that talent that was around him.

Sure, he took average talent to NFC Championship game. He has no elite talent on the offensive side of the ball, not the line, wr, TE or RB. I wasn't excusing him for the bad years and he doesn't need excusing I was referring to his int's. He finished 14th and 9th in fantasy points and threw for nearly 3900 yards in both years with 20 and 18 td passes the reasons the int's were so high was due to the terrible players. C'mon you are a knowledgable Packer fan and I know you are getting behind the new guy but you can't tell me that their talent wasn't HORRIBLE for '05/'06 on the offensive side of the ball.

Does a "legend" need to blame his team for his Ints or is that how you become a legend? This is a very weak arguemnet.

I don't know that he blamed anyone. Tell me who the good offensive players were on those teams? Driver........??? I think nearly everyone else has been cut.