Farve Reinstated; expected to report Monday (1 Viewer)

[packersfan]

You must be under the age of 35.

Unfortunately, I'm not. I'm old enough to remember when Scott Hunter and John Brockington were the offensive leaders on a Packers playoff team.

I've lived in MN for the last 9 years, so I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin. The older generation respect Brett as a legend, but they also know more about the "Packer" legend, and it's bigger than Brett Farve.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. I would disagree and say that in the eyes of the majority of Packers (arguably the vast majority prior to all of this nonsense), Favre would rank equally among the team's legends you cited. He has been that revered.

 

[sho nuff]

The appropriate thing to do would have been TT saying no more than, "If Brett wants to be on this team, he should send in the appropriate paperwork and come into camp." That's it. The team then has the following options:

1) Cut him

2) Trade him

3) Let him take over the starting spot and piss off AR

4) Let him be backup and ruin the season

Strangely, these are precisely the options the team still has despite all the Packers-sourced drama. They can't help the Favre part of the drama, but they could have acted as professionals. Of course, they would have had to be professionals in the first place for that to be an option.

Now, they have managed to piss off the most significant player they have had in decades. Now, there can be no doubt that he'll end up with the Vikings if he is cut just so he can have an opportunity to play Green Bay twice a year and try to keep them out of the playoffs.

Do you think he has handled it professionally?

I'm not sure yet. The more stupid things the Packers do, the more I buy into the idea that this has all been about reacting to the Packers on Favre's part.Let's say it's a no, though. Let's say I think Favre was just as immature as Owens was. The difference between a decent organization like the Eagles and one filled with assclowns like it seems the Packers are is how they react to the less than professional conduct of others. His conduct does not excuse theirs.

Id say neither has handled it professionally.And there are too many conflicting things out there to know for sure.

but it seems like they have been on the reaction side more than the other.

Especially recently where they have kept quiet in the media while he is off texting people and getting reactions.

The Eagles?

Yeah...cause they have handled TO so well right?

 

[smackdaddies]

What a way to treat the legend. This will be a brutal move for the Packers for PR reasons and Brett will really come back to haunt them than. Nothing like a man who is pissed. Just think of all the games where Brett faces adversity and comes up huge. He could be MVP with such a scenario and Vikings pay nothing for him. There team is good enough without him to keep things warm till he is ready to go. Say week 5 and watch out.

What a way for a legend to act. And by the way he is not a legend and doesn't even come close to making the top 3 when it comes to the GB Packers.

Come on now Phurfur...stop this.He is easily top 3 all around when it comes to GB and probably the best Packer ever when you take everything into consideration.

You obviously don't know much about the Packer Legacy.

Lambeau

Lombardi

Starr

Just to name three. Favre can not touch any of them when it comes to GB Packer Legends. GB has won 12 NFL championship Favre has only one of them.

Favre is without question a Packers legend. Favre may not have the titles those three have but when it comes to football immortality he ranks as their equal.

Packer legend yes, their equal, definitely not.

You must not have spent much, if any time, in Wisconsin the past decade or so.

You must be under the age of 35.I've lived in MN for the last 9 years, so I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin. The older generation respects Brett as a legend, but they also know more about the "Packer" legend, and it's bigger than Brett Farve.

 

[bcr8f]

I'm not sure yet. The more stupid things the Packers do, the more I buy into the idea that this has all been about reacting to the Packers on Favre's part.Let's say it's a no, though. Let's say I think Favre was just as immature as Owens was. The difference between a decent organization like the Eagles and one filled with assclowns like it seems the Packers are is how they react to the less than professional conduct of others. His conduct does not excuse theirs.

You don't understand Wisconsin. After over 20 years of mediocrity and Vikings/Bears fans rubbed our noses into losses Favre brought us winning. He has a special place in this state and most don't want the winning to end. Over here we are loyal. We don't throw stars under the bus the minute they stop producing. Eagles-good organizationPackers-assclowns

 

[sho nuff]

What a way to treat the legend. This will be a brutal move for the Packers for PR reasons and Brett will really come back to haunt them than. Nothing like a man who is pissed. Just think of all the games where Brett faces adversity and comes up huge. He could be MVP with such a scenario and Vikings pay nothing for him. There team is good enough without him to keep things warm till he is ready to go. Say week 5 and watch out.

What a way for a legend to act. And by the way he is not a legend and doesn't even come close to making the top 3 when it comes to the GB Packers.

Come on now Phurfur...stop this.He is easily top 3 all around when it comes to GB and probably the best Packer ever when you take everything into consideration.

You obviously don't know much about the Packer Legacy.

Lambeau

Lombardi

Starr

Just to name three. Favre can not touch any of them when it comes to GB Packer Legends. GB has won 12 NFL championship Favre has only one of them.

Favre is without question a Packers legend. Favre may not have the titles those three have but when it comes to football immortality he ranks as their equal.

Packer legend yes, their equal, definitely not.

You must not have spent much, if any time, in Wisconsin the past decade or so.

You must be under the age of 35.I've lived in MN for the last 9 years, so I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin. The older generation respects Brett as a legend, but they also know more about the "Packer" legend, and it's bigger than Brett Farve.

Of course it is bigger than Brett Favre...I don't think even the biggest Favre supporter would say otherwise.

 

[ScottyFargo]

You post an opinion piece Sal Paolantonio wrote for his book and that's your facts?

That same piece was derided by Packer fans when it was posted after his retirement because Sal had "an axe to grind". Now it's gospel because Favre is chopped liver as his fans have turned their back on him. Sad.

 

[Jimmy James]

I'm not sure yet. The more stupid things the Packers do, the more I buy into the idea that this has all been about reacting to the Packers on Favre's part.Let's say it's a no, though. Let's say I think Favre was just as immature as Owens was. The difference between a decent organization like the Eagles and one filled with assclowns like it seems the Packers are is how they react to the less than professional conduct of others. His conduct does not excuse theirs.

You don't understand Wisconsin. After over 20 years of mediocrity and Vikings/Bears fans rubbed our noses into losses Favre brought us winning. He has a special place in this state and most don't want the winning to end. Over here we are loyal. We don't throw stars under the bus the minute they stop producing. Eagles-good organizationPackers-assclowns

The Eagles drew a line and came down on Owens when he crossed it. They didn't try to keep him on the roster but leave him over on the side working out solo. They didn't whine about what might happen if he went to the Cowboys. He was a cancer to them, and they said good riddance. They most certainly didn't try to bribe him into going away.If you don't want the winning to end, you must come down on the team and tell them to rein in TT. TT is throwing your star under the bus for far less than underproduction.

 

[sho nuff]

You post an opinion piece Sal Paolantonio wrote for his book and that's your facts?

That same piece was derided by Packer fans when it was posted after his retirement because Sal had "an axe to grind". Now it's gospel because Favre is chopped liver as his fans have turned their back on him. Sad.

Sad...read your posts in these topics.The piece was a bit off, had some truth to it...but like all numbers...they can all be manipulated depending on the point of view.I don't think many agree its gospel and not all fans have turned their back on him totally.I hate how he has gone about this for sure...but has not changed that I think he gives the team the best chance to win this year.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm not sure yet. The more stupid things the Packers do, the more I buy into the idea that this has all been about reacting to the Packers on Favre's part.Let's say it's a no, though. Let's say I think Favre was just as immature as Owens was. The difference between a decent organization like the Eagles and one filled with assclowns like it seems the Packers are is how they react to the less than professional conduct of others. His conduct does not excuse theirs.

You don't understand Wisconsin. After over 20 years of mediocrity and Vikings/Bears fans rubbed our noses into losses Favre brought us winning. He has a special place in this state and most don't want the winning to end. Over here we are loyal. We don't throw stars under the bus the minute they stop producing. Eagles-good organizationPackers-assclowns

The Eagles drew a line and came down on Owens when he crossed it. They didn't try to keep him on the roster but leave him over on the side working out solo. They didn't whine about what might happen if he went to the Cowboys. He was a cancer to them, and they said good riddance. They most certainly didn't try to bribe him into going away.If you don't want the winning to end, you must come down on the team and tell them to rein in TT. TT is throwing your star under the bus for far less than underproduction.

IMO...Favre threw himself under that bus...though, TT has done little to help him out from under it and has tried to keep him there for sure.But please don't act as if Philly is all full of class and that great as far as how they have been run.

 

[packersfan]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:

1. The Lambeau Era

2. The Lombardi Era

3. The Favre Era

I say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre.

That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

 

[smackdaddies]

You must be under the age of 35.

Unfortunately, I'm not. I'm old enough to remember when Scott Hunter and John Brockington were the offensive leaders on a Packers playoff team.

I've lived in MN for the last 9 years, so I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin. The older generation respect Brett as a legend, but they also know more about the "Packer" legend, and it's bigger than Brett Farve.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. I would disagree and say that in the eyes of the majority of Packers (arguably the vast majority prior to all of this nonsense), Favre would rank equally among the team's legends you cited. He has been that revered.

Have to disagree. I remember trading for Bart Starr Cards (when he was still playing). Farve is great. I love Farve.He is not the same as Curly, Lombardi, Star, Kramer, Horning, etc.

A great, yes. But not quite at the very pinnacle. (edit - at least for us old folks)

 

[sho nuff]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:1. The Lambeau Era 2. The Lombardi Era3. The Favre EraI say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre. That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

I agree. And to Phurfur who put Starr in there...I love Bart...but he hurt his legend with how poor of a head coach he was.

 

[Sabertooth]

It's gotten to the point where the Packers are not acting like a team but a pissed-off significant other. Honestly, I have never seen a team that was one play from the superbowl be so eager to go into full-blown rebuilding mode. I mean, does anyone, Packers management and Mccarthy included, honestly believe that Aaron Rodgers gives them a better chance to win? Can anyone out there make any kind of argument that their record this year will be better with Rodgers at QB instead of Favre? I get that they want to "move on" but at this point it's like they are more concerned about Rodgers than they are about the state of the franchise.

FWIW, I think it's more than 50% likely that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance to win this year than Favre does.I'm not interested in debating this topic at length. But Favre, as great as he was for so many years, is not that good anymore. In 2005 and 2006, he averaged 6.3 YPA and threw 9 more INTs than TDs. (Over the last five seasons, Favre leads the NFL in interceptions with an astonishing 99. Joey Harrington is second with 69.) In 2007, his stats look better than they did in the two previous years, but those stats are deceiving.

The Packers' coaches have gotten to watch Aaron Rodgers in practice every day for the last several years. Rodgers has worked with the first team through OTAs and training camp so far this year. Rodgers looked good in his few regular-season pass attempts last year.

Brett Favre, IMO, is a below-average starting NFL quarterback right now. Maybe not below average, but IMO not above average either.

The Packers' coaches, who've seen more of Rodgers than the rest of us have, apparently believe that Rodgers is an above-average quarterback.

Maybe Rodgers will succeed and maybe he'll fail, but at this point I think he gives the team the best chance to win.

So if they believe what you're suggesting here, they should cut the man and HOPE he signs with a rival. This isn't rocket surgery.

Because he's still better than Grossman or Jackson by a mile.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:1. The Lambeau Era 2. The Lombardi Era3. The Favre EraI say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre. That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

 

[sho nuff]

You must be under the age of 35.

Unfortunately, I'm not. I'm old enough to remember when Scott Hunter and John Brockington were the offensive leaders on a Packers playoff team.

I've lived in MN for the last 9 years, so I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin. The older generation respect Brett as a legend, but they also know more about the "Packer" legend, and it's bigger than Brett Farve.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. I would disagree and say that in the eyes of the majority of Packers (arguably the vast majority prior to all of this nonsense), Favre would rank equally among the team's legends you cited. He has been that revered.

Have to disagree. I remember trading for Bart Starr Cards (when he was still playing). Farve is great. I love Farve.He is not the same as Curly, Lombardi, Star, Kramer, Horning, etc.

A great, yes. But not quite at the very pinnacle.

I disagree.And I love all the guys from the 60s and read every book on them I can.

But Favre changed GB...and alot of it has to do with Wolf and Holmgren and Reggie...but when you boil it all down, as bad as some people may hate it...Favre is the face of that era. When GB went from being the doormat in the NFC in the 70s and 80s...to a power house in the 90s who were a perennial playoff team.

 

[Jimmy James]

It's gotten to the point where the Packers are not acting like a team but a pissed-off significant other. Honestly, I have never seen a team that was one play from the superbowl be so eager to go into full-blown rebuilding mode. I mean, does anyone, Packers management and Mccarthy included, honestly believe that Aaron Rodgers gives them a better chance to win? Can anyone out there make any kind of argument that their record this year will be better with Rodgers at QB instead of Favre? I get that they want to "move on" but at this point it's like they are more concerned about Rodgers than they are about the state of the franchise.

FWIW, I think it's more than 50% likely that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance to win this year than Favre does.I'm not interested in debating this topic at length. But Favre, as great as he was for so many years, is not that good anymore. In 2005 and 2006, he averaged 6.3 YPA and threw 9 more INTs than TDs. (Over the last five seasons, Favre leads the NFL in interceptions with an astonishing 99. Joey Harrington is second with 69.) In 2007, his stats look better than they did in the two previous years, but those stats are deceiving.

The Packers' coaches have gotten to watch Aaron Rodgers in practice every day for the last several years. Rodgers has worked with the first team through OTAs and training camp so far this year. Rodgers looked good in his few regular-season pass attempts last year.

Brett Favre, IMO, is a below-average starting NFL quarterback right now. Maybe not below average, but IMO not above average either.

The Packers' coaches, who've seen more of Rodgers than the rest of us have, apparently believe that Rodgers is an above-average quarterback.

Maybe Rodgers will succeed and maybe he'll fail, but at this point I think he gives the team the best chance to win.

So if they believe what you're suggesting here, they should cut the man and HOPE he signs with a rival. This isn't rocket surgery.

Because he's still better than Grossman or Jackson by a mile.

Remember, the premise is that he's an average to below average QB who isn't even as good as Rodgers is right now (and we're hearing he is having a bad camp).That probably does make him better than Grossman, but it's far from obvious that makes him better than Jackson. I don't think the Bears really matter in any of this. If he's going somewhere, his wardrobe will be purple. Jackson is a 3rd year QB with a season of starting under his belt now. He could easily be an average QB this year.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I honestly don't understand all of the Packers/TT hate in here. While the bribe was pretty stupid, Favre has put the organization in an absolute no-wi situation.

For those saying "trade him": TO WHO!? No team with a solid QB is going to pay what Favre is worth. Favre won't accept a trade except to a contender, and how many contenders lack a solid QB? Only one, and everyone involved knows it, the Vikings....the one team the organiozation can't afford to trade him to.

For those in the play him camp: Even if Favre performs better then Rogers (a fair assumption), it still might set them back years as they very well could lose Rogers over this, not to mention the wasted pick in this years draft.

For those saying release him (now): We all know he'd be in Minnesotta by the end of the day. This is obviously un-acceptable for a team who believes they are a contender since it obviously provides their biggest rival a significant upgrade at QB.

What's left?

Shame on all of you who are calling out the Packers for how "they are treating a legend". They paid that legend MANY TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THE LAST 18 years. That legend was happy to sign long term for big money, essentially promising to never play elsewhere. That legend insisted he was retired 7 months ago when the Packers practically begged him to return, before they committed elsewhere. And it's that legend who's pooping all over the organization by refusing to accept legitimate trade offers now.

If Favre wants to play this badly, he should be grateful for any trade that keeps his current contract good. He should accept the Jets.

If I were TT, I would bench his ###, and release him mid-season after all of this. Why? Because I'm screwed anyway, so I might as well screw the guy back.

I once loved Brett Favre....not anymore.

I have no dog in this fight at all, but this post exactly echoes my feelings on the subject as well. As far as I'm concerned, Brent Favre = Barry Sanders. Good posting.

 

[sho nuff]

+Remember, the premise is that he's an average to below average QB who isn't even as good as Rodgers is right now (and we're hearing he is having a bad camp).That probably does make him better than Grossman, but it's far from obvious that makes him better than Jackson. I don't think the Bears really matter in any of this. If he's going somewhere, his wardrobe will be purple. Jackson is a 3rd year QB with a season of starting under his belt now. He could easily be an average QB this year.

Did you watch Jackson play? He was below average and showed little signs of improvement over the year IMO.

 

[packersfan]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:1. The Lambeau Era 2. The Lombardi Era3. The Favre EraI say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre. That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

I can appreciate the argument that maybe he wouldn't rank alongside Lombardi, but Hornung? He was a great player, no question, but Favre has been pretty damn good too and arguably a better player. The three MVP awards are pretty tough to argue against. The point being the culture of this team changed dramatically during each of these three eras. Now, there's no question that Wolf and Holmgren played critical (arguably the most important) roles in the culture changing during the third era I listed but even after both departed the team has continued to win and at least twice been a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The one constant during that time has been Brett Favre. This team simply has not lost during the majority of Favre's career as a starter. That's a fact. He is not solely responsible for that, of course, but when GMs change, head coaches change and players change but only one player remains, it's pretty clear that one player is playing a significant role in the team's success. Fifteen years of nearly entirely winning football is pretty impressive and that's what Brett Favre has meant to the Packers. We can debate who ranks higher in this team's history all day long. That's subjective. But I would believe any unbiased Packer fan would agree Favre ranks among the team's legends. He's earned that.

 

[ookook]

What a way to treat the legend. This will be a brutal move for the Packers for PR reasons and Brett will really come back to haunt them than. Nothing like a man who is pissed. Just think of all the games where Brett faces adversity and comes up huge. He could be MVP with such a scenario and Vikings pay nothing for him. There team is good enough without him to keep things warm till he is ready to go. Say week 5 and watch out.

What a way for a legend to act. And by the way he is not a legend and doesn't even come close to making the top 3 when it comes to the GB Packers.

Well now, that is an absurd standard for what it takes to be a legend.Favre holds more records than all of those other legends combined, but whose counting?He is one of the top 2 QBs the franchise has ever had. Does one have to be BETTER than than Bart Starr to be a legend? No.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:1. The Lambeau Era 2. The Lombardi Era3. The Favre EraI say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre. That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

I can appreciate the argument that maybe he wouldn't rank alongside Lombardi, but Hornung? He was a great player, no question, but Favre has been pretty damn good too and arguably a better player. The three MVP awards are pretty tough to argue against. The point being the culture of this team changed dramatically during each of these three eras. Now, there's no question that Wolf and Holmgren played critical (arguably the most important) roles in the culture changing during the third era I listed but even after both departed the team has continued to win and at least twice been a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The one constant during that time has been Brett Favre. This team simply has not lost during the majority of Favre's career as a starter. That's a fact. He is not solely responsible for that, of course, but when GMs change, head coaches change and players change but only one player remains, it's pretty clear that one player is playing a significant role in the team's success. Fifteen years of nearly entirely winning football is pretty impressive and that's what Brett Favre has meant to the Packers. We can debate who ranks higher in this team's history all day long. That's subjective. But I would believe any unbiased Packer fan would agree Favre ranks among the team's legends. He's earned that.

Maybe he does rank right there with the players, but it's idiotic for anyone to suggest he's on the same level as Lombardi as stated earlier. The all-time interception leader should be ranked as high as Starr.

 

[ookook]

All the chatter about "if Favre really wanted to play" is nonsense.

He wanted to compete for his old job and in my opinion has earned that right many times over.

Does he have to want to play for a crappy team rather than the team he captained for a cabillion years to REALLY want to play?

No.

By showing in camp it will have answered all questions about wanting to play. He does.

The Packers front office does not want him to.

They will not let him be a back-up. Everybody knows it who has truly been following.

Sho will not admit it, b ut every sign is that he will get no reps with the team. No playing time in preseason.

It is not ever clear they would let him take snaps if Rodgers went down at this point.

He is committed to playing for all but like 3 months of his life. Get one of your own.

 

[packersfan]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:1. The Lambeau Era 2. The Lombardi Era3. The Favre EraI say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre. That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

I can appreciate the argument that maybe he wouldn't rank alongside Lombardi, but Hornung? He was a great player, no question, but Favre has been pretty damn good too and arguably a better player. The three MVP awards are pretty tough to argue against. The point being the culture of this team changed dramatically during each of these three eras. Now, there's no question that Wolf and Holmgren played critical (arguably the most important) roles in the culture changing during the third era I listed but even after both departed the team has continued to win and at least twice been a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The one constant during that time has been Brett Favre. This team simply has not lost during the majority of Favre's career as a starter. That's a fact. He is not solely responsible for that, of course, but when GMs change, head coaches change and players change but only one player remains, it's pretty clear that one player is playing a significant role in the team's success. Fifteen years of nearly entirely winning football is pretty impressive and that's what Brett Favre has meant to the Packers. We can debate who ranks higher in this team's history all day long. That's subjective. But I would believe any unbiased Packer fan would agree Favre ranks among the team's legends. He's earned that.

Maybe he does rank right there with the players, but it's idiotic for anyone to suggest he's on the same level as Lombardi as stated earlier. The all-time interception leader should be ranked as high as Starr.

I disagree it's "idiotic." As stated, each of the eras I listed corresponded with a significant change in culture for the Packers. Lombardi is directly associated with his era and as I stated, Favre is directly associated with his. As I said, where everyone ranks is subjective. The Packers are fortunate to have a storied NFL history with a large number of people who could be equated the term "legends." Lombardi is one and I don't know how anyone would argue that Favre isn't another.

 

[Kleck]

It's gotten to the point where the Packers are not acting like a team but a pissed-off significant other. Honestly, I have never seen a team that was one play from the superbowl be so eager to go into full-blown rebuilding mode. I mean, does anyone, Packers management and Mccarthy included, honestly believe that Aaron Rodgers gives them a better chance to win? Can anyone out there make any kind of argument that their record this year will be better with Rodgers at QB instead of Favre? I get that they want to "move on" but at this point it's like they are more concerned about Rodgers than they are about the state of the franchise.

FWIW, I think it's more than 50% likely that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance to win this year than Favre does.I'm not interested in debating this topic at length. But Favre, as great as he was for so many years, is not that good anymore. In 2005 and 2006, he averaged 6.3 YPA and threw 9 more INTs than TDs. (Over the last five seasons, Favre leads the NFL in interceptions with an astonishing 99. Joey Harrington is second with 69.) In 2007, his stats look better than they did in the two previous years, but those stats are deceiving.

The Packers' coaches have gotten to watch Aaron Rodgers in practice every day for the last several years. Rodgers has worked with the first team through OTAs and training camp so far this year. Rodgers looked good in his few regular-season pass attempts last year.

Brett Favre, IMO, is a below-average starting NFL quarterback right now. Maybe not below average, but IMO not above average either.

The Packers' coaches, who've seen more of Rodgers than the rest of us have, apparently believe that Rodgers is an above-average quarterback.

Maybe Rodgers will succeed and maybe he'll fail, but at this point I think he gives the team the best chance to win.

I agree with you. Packer fans can't get past the iconic mentality. I felt the same way about Bert Jones, even though that's apples and oranges. The bottom line is that it's hard for fans to move past their heros.

I'm a Packer fan that can, and I'm pretty much with Trembley on this one too.

 

[sho nuff]

All the chatter about "if Favre really wanted to play" is nonsense.He wanted to compete for his old job and in my opinion has earned that right many times over. Does he have to want to play for a crappy team rather than the team he captained for a cabillion years to REALLY want to play?No.

I don't think anyone thought he would just want to play for a crappy team.But they offered up alternatives that were not all just crappy teams.he seemed to only want to play for one of 2 teams. (and there is talk of some other indecision with him I heard today on the radio too).

By showing in camp it will have answered all questions about wanting to play. He does. The Packers front office does not want him to. They will not let him be a back-up. Everybody knows it who has truly been following.Sho will not admit it, b ut every sign is that he will get no reps with the team. No playing time in preseason.

Except for the recent sources that are saying they will allow him to compete?

It is not ever clear they would let him take snaps if Rodgers went down at this point.

Again...except for the recent sources that say they will find a way to get him some reps and split them with Rodgers and let him compete for the job.And again, if those are true, I still won't totally believe it til I hear McCarthy say it.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:

1. The Lambeau Era

2. The Lombardi Era

3. The Favre Era

I say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre.

That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

I can appreciate the argument that maybe he wouldn't rank alongside Lombardi, but Hornung? He was a great player, no question, but Favre has been pretty damn good too and arguably a better player. The three MVP awards are pretty tough to argue against. The point being the culture of this team changed dramatically during each of these three eras. Now, there's no question that Wolf and Holmgren played critical (arguably the most important) roles in the culture changing during the third era I listed but even after both departed the team has continued to win and at least twice been a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The one constant during that time has been Brett Favre. This team simply has not lost during the majority of Favre's career as a starter. That's a fact. He is not solely responsible for that, of course, but when GMs change, head coaches change and players change but only one player remains, it's pretty clear that one player is playing a significant role in the team's success. Fifteen years of nearly entirely winning football is pretty impressive and that's what Brett Favre has meant to the Packers. We can debate who ranks higher in this team's history all day long. That's subjective. But I would believe any unbiased Packer fan would agree Favre ranks among the team's legends. He's earned that.

Maybe he does rank right there with the players, but it's idiotic for anyone to suggest he's on the same level as Lombardi as stated earlier. The all-time interception leader should be ranked as high as Starr.

I disagree it's "idiotic." As stated, each of the eras I listed corresponded with a significant change in culture for the Packers. Lombardi is directly associated with his era and as I stated, Favre is directly associated with his. As I said, where everyone ranks is subjective. The Packers are fortunate to have a storied NFL history with a large number of people who could be equated the term "legends." Lombardi is one and I don't know how anyone would argue that Favre isn't another.

Maybe they should hand out the Brett Favre trophy to the Super Winner this year

 

[packersfan]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:

1. The Lambeau Era

2. The Lombardi Era

3. The Favre Era

I say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre.

That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

I can appreciate the argument that maybe he wouldn't rank alongside Lombardi, but Hornung? He was a great player, no question, but Favre has been pretty damn good too and arguably a better player. The three MVP awards are pretty tough to argue against. The point being the culture of this team changed dramatically during each of these three eras. Now, there's no question that Wolf and Holmgren played critical (arguably the most important) roles in the culture changing during the third era I listed but even after both departed the team has continued to win and at least twice been a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The one constant during that time has been Brett Favre. This team simply has not lost during the majority of Favre's career as a starter. That's a fact. He is not solely responsible for that, of course, but when GMs change, head coaches change and players change but only one player remains, it's pretty clear that one player is playing a significant role in the team's success. Fifteen years of nearly entirely winning football is pretty impressive and that's what Brett Favre has meant to the Packers. We can debate who ranks higher in this team's history all day long. That's subjective. But I would believe any unbiased Packer fan would agree Favre ranks among the team's legends. He's earned that.

Maybe he does rank right there with the players, but it's idiotic for anyone to suggest he's on the same level as Lombardi as stated earlier. The all-time interception leader should be ranked as high as Starr.

I disagree it's "idiotic." As stated, each of the eras I listed corresponded with a significant change in culture for the Packers. Lombardi is directly associated with his era and as I stated, Favre is directly associated with his. As I said, where everyone ranks is subjective. The Packers are fortunate to have a storied NFL history with a large number of people who could be equated the term "legends." Lombardi is one and I don't know how anyone would argue that Favre isn't another.

Maybe they should hand out the Brett Favre trophy to the Super Winner this year

I see you keep missing the point. Oh well. I tried.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:

1. The Lambeau Era

2. The Lombardi Era

3. The Favre Era

I say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre.

That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

I can appreciate the argument that maybe he wouldn't rank alongside Lombardi, but Hornung? He was a great player, no question, but Favre has been pretty damn good too and arguably a better player. The three MVP awards are pretty tough to argue against. The point being the culture of this team changed dramatically during each of these three eras. Now, there's no question that Wolf and Holmgren played critical (arguably the most important) roles in the culture changing during the third era I listed but even after both departed the team has continued to win and at least twice been a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The one constant during that time has been Brett Favre. This team simply has not lost during the majority of Favre's career as a starter. That's a fact. He is not solely responsible for that, of course, but when GMs change, head coaches change and players change but only one player remains, it's pretty clear that one player is playing a significant role in the team's success. Fifteen years of nearly entirely winning football is pretty impressive and that's what Brett Favre has meant to the Packers. We can debate who ranks higher in this team's history all day long. That's subjective. But I would believe any unbiased Packer fan would agree Favre ranks among the team's legends. He's earned that.

Maybe he does rank right there with the players, but it's idiotic for anyone to suggest he's on the same level as Lombardi as stated earlier. The all-time interception leader should be ranked as high as Starr.

I disagree it's "idiotic." As stated, each of the eras I listed corresponded with a significant change in culture for the Packers. Lombardi is directly associated with his era and as I stated, Favre is directly associated with his. As I said, where everyone ranks is subjective. The Packers are fortunate to have a storied NFL history with a large number of people who could be equated the term "legends." Lombardi is one and I don't know how anyone would argue that Favre isn't another.

Maybe they should hand out the Brett Favre trophy to the Super Winner this year :whoosh:

I see you keep missing the point. Oh well. I tried.

I didn't miss the point. I know you want to put Favre on an equal level as Lombardi in Packer fans eyes, but I highly doubt they would agree with you. Maybe some 20 something kids might, but Lombardi is on the same level as the NFL, let alone the Packers. Favre isn't at that level in the majority of NFL eyes, and I highly doubt if he is in Packer fans eyes either.

 

[ookook]

All the chatter about "if Favre really wanted to play" is nonsense.He wanted to compete for his old job and in my opinion has earned that right many times over. Does he have to want to play for a crappy team rather than the team he captained for a cabillion years to REALLY want to play?No.

I don't think anyone thought he would just want to play for a crappy team.But they offered up alternatives that were not all just crappy teams.he seemed to only want to play for one of 2 teams. (and there is talk of some other indecision with him I heard today on the radio too).

By showing in camp it will have answered all questions about wanting to play. He does. The Packers front office does not want him to. They will not let him be a back-up. Everybody knows it who has truly been following.Sho will not admit it, b ut every sign is that he will get no reps with the team. No playing time in preseason.

Except for the recent sources that are saying they will allow him to compete?

It is not ever clear they would let him take snaps if Rodgers went down at this point.

Again...except for the recent sources that say they will find a way to get him some reps and split them with Rodgers and let him compete for the job.And again, if those are true, I still won't totally believe it til I hear McCarthy say it.

Well yeah, if they let him compete then I take it back.But I have heard no one in the Packers say this but I have heard them say "individual reps only".So far the "he will get to compete" thing sounds like a rumor.You remember those, right Sho? You cry "rumor" enough when you are kissing the buns of the FO, eh? :whoosh:

 

[Phurfur]

What a way to treat the legend. This will be a brutal move for the Packers for PR reasons and Brett will really come back to haunt them than. Nothing like a man who is pissed. Just think of all the games where Brett faces adversity and comes up huge. He could be MVP with such a scenario and Vikings pay nothing for him. There team is good enough without him to keep things warm till he is ready to go. Say week 5 and watch out.

What a way for a legend to act. And by the way he is not a legend and doesn't even come close to making the top 3 when it comes to the GB Packers.

Come on now Phurfur...stop this.He is easily top 3 all around when it comes to GB and probably the best Packer ever when you take everything into consideration.

You obviously don't know much about the Packer Legacy.LambeauLombardiStarrJust to name three. Favre can not touch any of them when it comes to GB Packer Legends. GB has won 12 NFL championship Favre has only one of them.

I think he pushes Starr out of that quite easily right now.And i was thinking more players...Also an lol of bringing out Curly.

LOL without Curly Lambeau there would be no Packer franchise. You have no idea what he has done for the organization. Curly Lambeau will always be #1.Bart Starrs record speakes for itself.

 

[sho nuff]

All the chatter about "if Favre really wanted to play" is nonsense.He wanted to compete for his old job and in my opinion has earned that right many times over. Does he have to want to play for a crappy team rather than the team he captained for a cabillion years to REALLY want to play?No.

I don't think anyone thought he would just want to play for a crappy team.But they offered up alternatives that were not all just crappy teams.he seemed to only want to play for one of 2 teams. (and there is talk of some other indecision with him I heard today on the radio too).

By showing in camp it will have answered all questions about wanting to play. He does. The Packers front office does not want him to. They will not let him be a back-up. Everybody knows it who has truly been following.Sho will not admit it, b ut every sign is that he will get no reps with the team. No playing time in preseason.

Except for the recent sources that are saying they will allow him to compete?

It is not ever clear they would let him take snaps if Rodgers went down at this point.

Again...except for the recent sources that say they will find a way to get him some reps and split them with Rodgers and let him compete for the job.And again, if those are true, I still won't totally believe it til I hear McCarthy say it.

Well yeah, if they let him compete then I take it back.But I have heard no one in the Packers say this but I have heard them say "individual reps only".So far the "he will get to compete" thing sounds like a rumor.You remember those, right Sho? You cry "rumor" enough when you are kissing the buns of the FO, eh? :whoosh:

Yup...and I have said they have not been confirmed and I won't believe it til McCarthy says it.

 

[packersfan]

I didn't miss the point. I know you want to put Favre on an equal level as Lombardi in Packer fans eyes, but I highly doubt they would agree with you. Maybe some 20 something kids might, but Lombardi is on the same level as the NFL, let alone the Packers. Favre isn't at that level in the majority of NFL eyes, and I highly doubt if he is in Packer fans eyes either.

My point is that the Packers have had three significant eras during their history. And Favre is the iconic figure during his era. He is a Packers legend. Where he ranks compared to this person or that is entirely subjective, but he is a legend in this team's history. I feel quite certain that the vast majority of Packer fans (at least prior to this mess) would agree with that.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

What a way to treat the legend. This will be a brutal move for the Packers for PR reasons and Brett will really come back to haunt them than. Nothing like a man who is pissed. Just think of all the games where Brett faces adversity and comes up huge. He could be MVP with such a scenario and Vikings pay nothing for him. There team is good enough without him to keep things warm till he is ready to go. Say week 5 and watch out.

What a way for a legend to act. And by the way he is not a legend and doesn't even come close to making the top 3 when it comes to the GB Packers.

Come on now Phurfur...stop this.He is easily top 3 all around when it comes to GB and probably the best Packer ever when you take everything into consideration.

You obviously don't know much about the Packer Legacy.LambeauLombardiStarrJust to name three. Favre can not touch any of them when it comes to GB Packer Legends. GB has won 12 NFL championship Favre has only one of them.

I think he pushes Starr out of that quite easily right now.And i was thinking more players...Also an lol of bringing out Curly.

LOL without Curly Lambeau there would be no Packer franchise. You have no idea what he has done for the organization. Curly Lambeau will always be #1.Bart Starrs record speakes for itself.

Yes, his record speaks for itself, but you can't ignore the team he was on, and that 152 to 138 td / int is something special.

 

[sho nuff]

What a way to treat the legend. This will be a brutal move for the Packers for PR reasons and Brett will really come back to haunt them than. Nothing like a man who is pissed. Just think of all the games where Brett faces adversity and comes up huge. He could be MVP with such a scenario and Vikings pay nothing for him. There team is good enough without him to keep things warm till he is ready to go. Say week 5 and watch out.

What a way for a legend to act. And by the way he is not a legend and doesn't even come close to making the top 3 when it comes to the GB Packers.

Come on now Phurfur...stop this.He is easily top 3 all around when it comes to GB and probably the best Packer ever when you take everything into consideration.

You obviously don't know much about the Packer Legacy.LambeauLombardiStarrJust to name three. Favre can not touch any of them when it comes to GB Packer Legends. GB has won 12 NFL championship Favre has only one of them.

I think he pushes Starr out of that quite easily right now.And i was thinking more players...Also an lol of bringing out Curly.

LOL without Curly Lambeau there would be no Packer franchise. You have no idea what he has done for the organization. Curly Lambeau will always be #1.Bart Starrs record speakes for itself.

i know it...Curly is kind of a given...It was just funny to see.I have no idea wha the has done for the Packer organization?Because I laughed that you brought his old bones out?Please......get a grip man...let your emotions go for a minute and think about this realisticly with Favre.Starr was a great QB for sure...Favre is better.And Favre's record includes many more wins, TDs, Yards...and so on.Starr was the right guy for Lombardi's coaching...but how much of that was Lombardi and how much of it was Starr.Again...IMO...Favre is beyond Starr in the legend status in GB.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

I didn't miss the point. I know you want to put Favre on an equal level as Lombardi in Packer fans eyes, but I highly doubt they would agree with you. Maybe some 20 something kids might, but Lombardi is on the same level as the NFL, let alone the Packers. Favre isn't at that level in the majority of NFL eyes, and I highly doubt if he is in Packer fans eyes either.

My point is that the Packers have had three significant eras during their history. And Favre is the iconic figure during his era. He is a Packers legend. Where he ranks compared to this person or that is entirely subjective, but he is a legend in this team's history. I feel quite certain that the vast majority of Packer fans (at least prior to this mess) would agree with that.

Then you missed my point. I'm saying that you can't compare Favre to Lombardi regardless of era. I feel quite certain that the vast majority of Pack fans (regardless of this mess) would agree with that. I agree with you that Farve is an iconic figure during his era and is a Packers legend.

 

[Phurfur]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:

1. The Lambeau Era

2. The Lombardi Era

3. The Favre Era

I say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre.

That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

Opps...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3281535

Oh, you say Starr was surrounded by a Hall of Fame roster with a legendary coach. But Starr still is the NFL record holder with a 104.8 career playoff passer rating, nearly 20 points higher than Favre's. That wasn't Vince Lombardi or Ray Nitschke throwing those passes for Starr, whose career postseason passer rating, by the way, is 38 points higher than Johnny Unitas'.

Favre's career playoff record was 12-10. Starr's was 9-1 -- without the benefit of wild-card games. Favre threw 28 interceptions in 22 playoff games. Starr threw three in 10. Think about that -- just three picks in 213 postseason attempts.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

There are three storied chapters in the Packers' history:

1. The Lambeau Era

2. The Lombardi Era

3. The Favre Era

I say the Favre Era and not the Wolf/Holmgren Era (although if we're talking about Super Bowls that would be more accurate and Bob Harlan's place should not be ignored either) because Favre has been with the team longer than anyone else connected to the Wolf/Holmgren Era. When people think about the last 15 years of Packers football, the first name that will be associated with the team in the eyes of many is Brett Favre. That's the reality. As pointed out before, the Packers spent most of the 70s and 80s being one of the biggest jokes in the NFL. The arrival of Wolf and Holmgren changed that and although the team has not repeated the success it had when Wolf and Holmgren were together, it has been a consistent winner and the one constant (through different head coaches, GMs and players) has been Favre.

That's not to say he's bigger than the Packers. He obviously isn't. But if we're talking about the most revered figures in this team's history, he's right there in the eyes of most Packer fans with the greats who are associated with the previous two eras I cited.

It's easy to say that because most remember the most recent players. No way he can be on the same level as Lombardi and Hornung. Starr yes, but Lombardi no. Starr was an average QB on great teams.

Opps...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3281535

Oh, you say Starr was surrounded by a Hall of Fame roster with a legendary coach. But Starr still is the NFL record holder with a 104.8 career playoff passer rating, nearly 20 points higher than Favre's. That wasn't Vince Lombardi or Ray Nitschke throwing those passes for Starr, whose career postseason passer rating, by the way, is 38 points higher than Johnny Unitas'.

Favre's career playoff record was 12-10. Starr's was 9-1 -- without the benefit of wild-card games. Favre threw 28 interceptions in 22 playoff games. Starr threw three in 10. Think about that -- just three picks in 213 postseason attempts.

That was in another thread or earlier in this one (already old), but while I agree with you about Starr in the playoffs, overall for his career he was average IMO.

 

[Jon_Moore]

I am so over the behind the scenes nonsense.

From a purely football decision if the Packers do not want Favre to be their QB this year they are complete and utter morons.

It's that simple.

If Brett Favre wants to play football this season for the Green Bay Packers coming off one his best years ever I can't see the logic in this nonsense. He said....she said all you want about who is to blame. This is about winning football games.

Aarron Rodgers?

Puleeeeze.

Because its not just about "THIS YEAR".

I disagree. As close to they were to going to the SuperBowl last year, they'd be making a mistake not to use Favre and give it another go IMO.

 

[Tau837]

It's gotten to the point where the Packers are not acting like a team but a pissed-off significant other. Honestly, I have never seen a team that was one play from the superbowl be so eager to go into full-blown rebuilding mode. I mean, does anyone, Packers management and Mccarthy included, honestly believe that Aaron Rodgers gives them a better chance to win? Can anyone out there make any kind of argument that their record this year will be better with Rodgers at QB instead of Favre? I get that they want to "move on" but at this point it's like they are more concerned about Rodgers than they are about the state of the franchise.

FWIW, I think it's more than 50% likely that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance to win this year than Favre does.I'm not interested in debating this topic at length. But Favre, as great as he was for so many years, is not that good anymore. In 2005 and 2006, he averaged 6.3 YPA and threw 9 more INTs than TDs. (Over the last five seasons, Favre leads the NFL in interceptions with an astonishing 99. Joey Harrington is second with 69.) In 2007, his stats look better than they did in the two previous years, but those stats are deceiving.

The Packers' coaches have gotten to watch Aaron Rodgers in practice every day for the last several years. Rodgers has worked with the first team through OTAs and training camp so far this year. Rodgers looked good in his few regular-season pass attempts last year.

Brett Favre, IMO, is a below-average starting NFL quarterback right now. Maybe not below average, but IMO not above average either.

The Packers' coaches, who've seen more of Rodgers than the rest of us have, apparently believe that Rodgers is an above-average quarterback.

Maybe Rodgers will succeed and maybe he'll fail, but at this point I think he gives the team the best chance to win.

Do you think a QB's statistics are a complete measure of his worth to his team? For example:1. I would argue that Favre's ability to start every game for so many years has been worth something above just the numbers he produced on the field.

2. It is likely there will be occasions when Favre will be able to read and adjust at times Rodgers could not, due to the enormous gap in experience. For the same reason, I suspect Favre is able to give McCarthy and the coaching staff more valuable in game input to help the coaching staff adjust its playcalling.

3. I think it is likely that the other players have at least a bit more confidence in Favre than they would in Rodgers. They have seen Favre excel for years in NFL game situations, while they have seen Rodgers do it only in practice and very limited game action. This, in turn, can translate into slightly better performance for those other players.

I assume your statement that Rodgers is more likely to give the Packers their best chance to win is predicated more on your belief that Favre is average or below average than it is about Rodgers himself. I mean, what meaningful information do you have to judge Rodgers on? He has 59 career pass attempts.

So if Favre is average or below average, apparently you must feel that at least half of the QBs in the NFL could have performed as well as or better than Favre did in Green Bay's offense last season. Is that right? I mean, it's basically all the receivers, anyway, right?

So help me understand all of the QBs who are better. I assume Peyton Manning and Brady are two of them. Oh yeah, and Rodgers, of course. Who else?

Also, on your statement about interceptions above, it is of course a known weakness for Favre. However, it is notable that Favre also attempted more passes than any other QB in the NFL over the past 5 seasons, and only 5 other QBs were within even 500 attempts of his total. Roethlisberger and Romo are both highly regarded QBs that had worse interception percentages over that span.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's gotten to the point where the Packers are not acting like a team but a pissed-off significant other. Honestly, I have never seen a team that was one play from the superbowl be so eager to go into full-blown rebuilding mode. I mean, does anyone, Packers management and Mccarthy included, honestly believe that Aaron Rodgers gives them a better chance to win? Can anyone out there make any kind of argument that their record this year will be better with Rodgers at QB instead of Favre? I get that they want to "move on" but at this point it's like they are more concerned about Rodgers than they are about the state of the franchise.

FWIW, I think it's more than 50% likely that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance to win this year than Favre does.I'm not interested in debating this topic at length. But Favre, as great as he was for so many years, is not that good anymore. In 2005 and 2006, he averaged 6.3 YPA and threw 9 more INTs than TDs. (Over the last five seasons, Favre leads the NFL in interceptions with an astonishing 99. Joey Harrington is second with 69.) In 2007, his stats look better than they did in the two previous years, but those stats are deceiving.

The Packers' coaches have gotten to watch Aaron Rodgers in practice every day for the last several years. Rodgers has worked with the first team through OTAs and training camp so far this year. Rodgers looked good in his few regular-season pass attempts last year.

Brett Favre, IMO, is a below-average starting NFL quarterback right now. Maybe not below average, but IMO not above average either.

The Packers' coaches, who've seen more of Rodgers than the rest of us have, apparently believe that Rodgers is an above-average quarterback.

Maybe Rodgers will succeed and maybe he'll fail, but at this point I think he gives the team the best chance to win.

Do you think a QB's statistics are a complete measure of his worth to his team?

If I thought that, I wouldn't have said that Favre's statistics last season were deceiving.

1. I would argue that Favre's ability to start every game for so many years has been worth something above just the numbers he produced on the field.

Yes, he's a tough son of a gun and one of the top competitors the league has ever seen.

2. It is likely there will be occasions when Favre will be able to read and adjust at times Rodgers could not, due to the enormous gap in experience. For the same reason, I suspect Favre is able to give McCarthy and the coaching staff more valuable in game input to help the coaching staff adjust its playcalling.

Sure. Rodgers isn't better than Favre in every category and wouldn't get a better result on every play.

3. I think it is likely that the other players have at least a bit more confidence in Favre than they would in Rodgers.

I don't know to what extent that would remain true if Rodgers plays better than Favre, and I also don't know how much it matters. But to the extent that it's true and it matters, it's a point in Favre's favor.

I assume your statement that Rodgers is more likely to give the Packers their best chance to win is predicated more on your belief that Favre is average or below average than it is about Rodgers himself. I mean, what meaningful information do you have to judge Rodgers on? He has 59 career pass attempts.

It's based on my belief that Favre is merely average at this point, and on my belief that the Packers' coaching staff and front office seem to want to go with Rodgers now, and I think deference to their opinion is warranted. It's also based on the fact that Rodgers has looked good when I've seen him play, but that's only a small factor since I haven't seen him play much.

So if Favre is average or below average, apparently you must feel that at least half of the QBs in the NFL could have performed as well as or better than Favre did in Green Bay's offense last season. Is that right? I mean, it's basically all the receivers, anyway, right?

So help me understand all of the QBs who are better. I assume Peyton Manning and Brady are two of them. Oh yeah, and Rodgers, of course. Who else?

Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Tony Romo, Ben Roethlisberger, David Garrard, Matt Hasselbeck, Carson Palmer, Drew Brees. Possibly Kurt Warner and Derek Anderson. If we're talking about next year instead of last year, I'd also rather have Philip Rivers, Donovan McNabb, and maybe Jay Cutler. And Aaron Rodgers.

Also, on your statement about interceptions above, it is of course a known weakness for Favre. However, it is notable that Favre also attempted more passes than any other QB in the NFL over the past 5 seasons, and only 5 other QBs were within even 500 attempts of his total. Roethlisberger and Romo are both highly regarded QBs that had worse interception percentages over that span.

True, but Romo and Roethisberger have both averaged over 8 yards per attempt; and while they have very slightly higher interception percentages than Favre, they have substantially higher touchdown percentages.

 

[FavreCo]

Track his flight into Green Bay, homies!!!!

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N531RQ/...2155Z/KPIB/KGRB

He's almost there!!!!!

FAVRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is so exciting.

 

[FavreCo]

Descending.....13 minutes out....363 knts.......17100 ft......preparing for approach......

 

[Phurfur]

Descending.....13 minutes out....363 knts.......17100 ft......preparing for approach......

Just in time for HOF Game coverage.

 

[Silver & Black]

I have no dog in this fight either.

All I can say that as a football fan, I just can't help but think this whole mess started with Favre. He chose to retire, and ever since, the Pack has been in a no win situation. They moved on and were forced to change their plans....again.

Anyway, I think it is a given now that Favre shows up and wins the job. That being said, I now find myself rooting for him to have a crappy year. As a rabid fantasy baller, I'd never thought I'd here myself say that.

 

[gorf]

John Clayton is reporting Favre has REJECTED THE 25 MILLION dollar buyout and wants to play football.

then let him play for the Jets.

if they're willing to pay him what he's due under his contract...

Favre nixed it. The Packers would have LOVED to have made this trade.

pretty sure favre doesn't have a no-trade clause. (if i'm wrong, i'm sure someone will let me know.) the reason people are saying favre won't allow a trade to any of these other teams is because he's not willing to renegotiate his contract for just anyone. if green bay worked out a deal with the jets and the jets were willing to pay him $12 million, i'm pretty sure favre couldn't do anything about it. there's a pretty big difference between saying favre won't allow a trade to another team and saying favre won't give up the salary he's entitled to under his existing contract.

 

[Flash]

It's gotten to the point where the Packers are not acting like a team but a pissed-off significant other. Honestly, I have never seen a team that was one play from the superbowl be so eager to go into full-blown rebuilding mode. I mean, does anyone, Packers management and Mccarthy included, honestly believe that Aaron Rodgers gives them a better chance to win? Can anyone out there make any kind of argument that their record this year will be better with Rodgers at QB instead of Favre? I get that they want to "move on" but at this point it's like they are more concerned about Rodgers than they are about the state of the franchise.

FWIW, I think it's more than 50% likely that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance to win this year than Favre does.I'm not interested in debating this topic at length. But Favre, as great as he was for so many years, is not that good anymore. In 2005 and 2006, he averaged 6.3 YPA and threw 9 more INTs than TDs. (Over the last five seasons, Favre leads the NFL in interceptions with an astonishing 99. Joey Harrington is second with 69.) In 2007, his stats look better than they did in the two previous years, but those stats are deceiving.

The Packers' coaches have gotten to watch Aaron Rodgers in practice every day for the last several years. Rodgers has worked with the first team through OTAs and training camp so far this year. Rodgers looked good in his few regular-season pass attempts last year.

Brett Favre, IMO, is a below-average starting NFL quarterback right now. Maybe not below average, but IMO not above average either.

The Packers' coaches, who've seen more of Rodgers than the rest of us have, apparently believe that Rodgers is an above-average quarterback.

Maybe Rodgers will succeed and maybe he'll fail, but at this point I think he gives the team the best chance to win.

I agree with you. Packer fans can't get past the iconic mentality. I felt the same way about Bert Jones, even though that's apples and oranges. The bottom line is that it's hard for fans to move past their heros.

I'm a Packer fan that can, and I'm pretty much with Trembley on this one too.

I'm a Packer fan as well, been so for over 40 years. I too can get past the iconic mentality. The only thing I have been asking for this whole time is to put the best team possible out on the field. I don't care who is the QB.Based on his numbers last year, I think Favre deserves a chance to compete, I repeat compete for his job, not have it handed to him.

As a fan that's all you can ask for.

 

[gorf]

The same people who are so convinced that he's still a all-pro caliber QB are the ones saying the Pack should let him compete in camp.

They can't, because in the court of popular opinion, Favre wins the camp battle in a landslide, regardless of how Favre and Rodgers play. It's a no-win for the organization.

Favre to compete with Rodgers for job.

They are well past the point of doing what they want to in this situation. They really don't have a choice but to say they'll "let him compete". The real question is....WILL IT BE A FAIR, UNBIASED, COMPETITION which is IMMUNE TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION? My answer to that question is: "How could it be?"

if there is a QB competition, it's not going to be as simple as "may the best quarterback win" -- the packers really want rodgers to be the guy now, so favre would have to outplay him by quite a bit.

 

[FavreCo]

TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!! BRETT FAVRE!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Flash]

TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!! BRETT FAVRE!!!!!!!!!!!!

The local TV station here has the plane on camera and is tracking it as it lands.It just turned and is slowing down heading to the hangar.

Crowd of hundreds is cheering.

Another right turn..........

Plane has stopped......

 

[Flash]

THE DOOR IS OPEN!!!!!!!!!!