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.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 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.
This is a ludicrous statement from someone who should know football and how negotiations work.WowYes, 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.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.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
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.
J
How so?JThis is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
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.How so?JThis is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
At being hesitant to pay an unproven RB while offering Favre a 20 million deal as "bashing TT". JBecause 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.How so?JThis is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
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.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.How so?JThis is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
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.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.
Well...they did...and he did.Do you think Favre would have retired if Thompson or McCarthy told him he was wanted back in February?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...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.JI'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.
Too bad they offered it long before they even started with Grant.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.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
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.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)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 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.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?
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...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.
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???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.
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.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...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.
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...
So who are you bashing over the Grant negotiations then? McCarthy?Joe Bryant said:At being hesitant to pay an unproven RB while offering Favre a 20 million deal as "bashing TT". JDusty Rhodes said: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 said:How so?JDusty Rhodes said:This is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
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.Iwannabeacowboybaby! said: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.Dusty Rhodes said: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 said:How so?JDusty Rhodes said:This is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
That is not normal negotiations.
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.Dusty Rhodes said: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 said:How so?JDusty Rhodes said:This is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
Pun intended or not?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.Dusty Rhodes said: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 said:How so?JDusty Rhodes said:This is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
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.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.Dusty Rhodes said: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 said:How so?JDusty Rhodes said:This is a ludicrous statement.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.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.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
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.
J
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.thatguythere said: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.thatguythere said: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.
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.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.JI 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.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
Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?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.thatguythere said: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.
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.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.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.JI 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.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
Right, so we're in agreement. As I said, because of how things went down, Favre...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.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.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.JI 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.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
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.... 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.
I was responding to the bolded comment above...Right, so we're in agreement. As I said, because of how things went down, Favre...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.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.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.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.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
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.
J
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.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.... 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.
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.Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?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.thatguythere said: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, 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.I was responding to the bolded comment above...Right, so we're in agreement. As I said, because of how things went down, Favre...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.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.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.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.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
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.
J
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.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.... 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 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)
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.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.Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?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.thatguythere said: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...thatguythere said: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.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...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.
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...
Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.
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?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.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.Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?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.thatguythere said: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.
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.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.JI 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.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
You should try and tell the owners that they should move the team to LA... see how well that works...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.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)
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.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.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)
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.larry_boy_44 said:yes and no...See, you need to remember that I've spent 16 years watching Brett Favre make crappy players better...thatguythere said: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.larry_boy_44 said: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...twistd said: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.
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...
Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.
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 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.JTM said: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?sho nuff said: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.JTM said: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.sho nuff said:Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?Challenge Everything said: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.thatguythere said: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.
I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..
that's what I was saying...That Favre really didn't make Jennings & Grant, etc. look better...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.larry_boy_44 said:yes and no...See, you need to remember that I've spent 16 years watching Brett Favre make crappy players better...thatguythere said: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.larry_boy_44 said: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...twistd said: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.
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...
Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy to see him go. Enjoy the season.
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...
How long is Rodgers signed for?JBizkiteer said: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.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.JI 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.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
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?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.JTM said: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?sho nuff said: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.JTM said: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.sho nuff said:Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?Challenge Everything said: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.thatguythere said: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.
I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..
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?How long is Rodgers signed for?JBizkiteer said: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.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.JI 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.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
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...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?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.JTM said: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?sho nuff said: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.JTM said: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.sho nuff said:Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?Challenge Everything said: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.thatguythere said: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.
I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..
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.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...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?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.JTM said: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?sho nuff said: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.JTM said: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.sho nuff said:Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?Challenge Everything said: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.thatguythere said: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.
I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..
This works better if it's remotely similar to the Green Bay situation.How long is Rodgers signed for?JHow'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?How long is Rodgers signed for?JBizkiteer said: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.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.JI 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.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
That must disqualify you considering you think the Packers did nothing to show Favre any disrespect.most people who know what they are talking about are pretty confident that Rodgers is stayingSo 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?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.JTM said: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?sho nuff said: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.JTM said: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.sho nuff said:Ummm...where are you getting that he cannot throw the ball accurately over 30-40 yards?Challenge Everything said: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.thatguythere said: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.
I reserve my ultimate judgement on Rodgers for the first game he gets pounded and picked off..