How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (1 Viewer)

[Aaronstory]

I love watching the sho nuff meltdowns.

I love phase adding nothing to an argument other than baiting and piling on with the ramblings of ookie.

Jets 7-3Packers 4-5

You obviously don't have a clue about the game of football because if you did you wouldn't post something this simplistic and ridiculous.Keep Fishing.

I just posted two facts about football. The Jets are 7-3 and the Packers are 4-5. That shows I know something about football. I will add a third fact....the Jets are in first place.

It shows you know how to read a box score. This post just proves my point, I rest my case.

I know you don't understand what I am saying so let it go.

 

[packersfan]

Which now makes the trade worth a second round draft choice. This trade is looking better every week.

The second-round pick is still less than what the Falcons got for Favre when he was a third-string QB who spent more time drinking on the weekends than playing in games.

Though, he was a bit younger then.

And he's considerably better now and coming off a season where he finished second in the MVP voting. Not to mention he's a Hall of Fame lock too. I just thought the Packers should have gotten more for him. I think the Jets fleeced the Packers with the deal. Getting a major upgrade at the most important position on the field for a second-round pick is highway robbery in my opinion. The Giants got more for Jeremy Shockey and the Dolphins got more for Jason Taylor. I think Thompson settled for a lesser deal because he wanted Favre gone bad and didn't care if he wasn't getting fair value in return. That was my opinion at the time of the trade and nothing has happened to change my opinion since then.

 

[Phurfur]

Which now makes the trade worth a second round draft choice. This trade is looking better every week.

The second-round pick is still less than what the Falcons got for Favre when he was a third-string QB who spent more time drinking on the weekends than playing in games.

Exactly, GB gives up a 1st, uses Favre for 16 years and then gets a 2nd for him. Brilliant!

 

[sho nuff]

Which now makes the trade worth a second round draft choice. This trade is looking better every week.

The second-round pick is still less than what the Falcons got for Favre when he was a third-string QB who spent more time drinking on the weekends than playing in games.

Though, he was a bit younger then.

And he's considerably better now and coming off a season where he finished second in the MVP voting. Not to mention he's a Hall of Fame lock too. I just thought the Packers should have gotten more for him. I think the Jets fleeced the Packers with the deal. Getting a major upgrade at the most important position on the field for a second-round pick is highway robbery in my opinion. The Giants got more for Jeremy Shockey and the Dolphins got more for Jason Taylor. I think Thompson settled for a lesser deal because he wanted Favre gone bad and didn't care if he wasn't getting fair value in return. That was my opinion at the time of the trade and nothing has happened to change my opinion since then.

Umm...you realize he may only play this one more year right.And the difference in value of a QB in his early 20s and one in his late 30s who already retired once is a bit different.As for fleeced? I disagree. Right now, they stand to get a 2nd for him if he makes the playoffs.For a guy that they planned all offseason to play without. I wish they could trade Lynn Dickey right now for a 4th rounder.No doubt the Jets got a great deal out of it though.Shockey will play more than one year. Taylor committed to more than one year I believe. And those trades were also made at different times...which affects what they will get.Thompson settled for the deal he could get because of the timing. Had they been able to trade him on draft day in the first place, they might have gotten more.I think they got fair value for a 38 year old QB who may only play one more year whose offseason workouts consisted of running steps with his wife and throwing to high school kids.

 

[Phurfur]

Which now makes the trade worth a second round draft choice. This trade is looking better every week.

The second-round pick is still less than what the Falcons got for Favre when he was a third-string QB who spent more time drinking on the weekends than playing in games.

Though, he was a bit younger then.

And he's considerably better now and coming off a season where he finished second in the MVP voting. Not to mention he's a Hall of Fame lock too. I just thought the Packers should have gotten more for him. I think the Jets fleeced the Packers with the deal. Getting a major upgrade at the most important position on the field for a second-round pick is highway robbery in my opinion. The Giants got more for Jeremy Shockey and the Dolphins got more for Jason Taylor. I think Thompson settled for a lesser deal because he wanted Favre gone bad and didn't care if he wasn't getting fair value in return. That was my opinion at the time of the trade and nothing has happened to change my opinion since then.

Going to the AFC was a big part of it.

 

[packersfan]

I wish they could trade Lynn Dickey right now for a 4th rounder.

Me too. But I'm discussing events that happen in the real world. Seriously, I didn't like the trade. Yes I realize Favre may only play one more year but he could do in one year what no Jet QB has done in quite awhile. Favre had significant value to the Jets. But Thompson couldn't even get a deal that was similar to ones the Giants and Dolphins got for players who aren't as good as Favre and carry significantly higher injury issues as well (both of which have been realized). And I realize that a 38-year-old QB has different value than one in his early 20s. But in this instance, the 38-year-old has HIGHER value because he's a proven NFL QB, one who finished second in the MVP voting and is regarded as one of the best QBs in the game. The Brett Favre in 1991 was a third-string QB who only one GM in the league thought was worth a damn. Fortunately, that one GM was Ron Wolf and he was right on the money. Favre's value was horrible then. It's just my opinion but I think Thompson had it in his mind that he wanted to push Favre out the door and he wasn't going to negotiate. His only sticking point was he wouldn't trade him to the NFC. But when an AFC team made him an offer, even if it was for lesser value, he was going to take it because he wanted to be rid of him.

 

[sho nuff]

I wish they could trade Lynn Dickey right now for a 4th rounder.

Me too. But I'm discussing events that happen in the real world. Seriously, I didn't like the trade. Yes I realize Favre may only play one more year but he could do in one year what no Jet QB has done in quite awhile. Favre had significant value to the Jets. But Thompson couldn't even get a deal that was similar to ones the Giants and Dolphins got for players who aren't as good as Favre and carry significantly higher injury issues as well (both of which have been realized). And I realize that a 38-year-old QB has different value than one in his early 20s. But in this instance, the 38-year-old has HIGHER value because he's a proven NFL QB, one who finished second in the MVP voting and is regarded as one of the best QBs in the game. The Brett Favre in 1991 was a third-string QB who only one GM in the league thought was worth a damn. Fortunately, that one GM was Ron Wolf and he was right on the money. Favre's value was horrible then. It's just my opinion but I think Thompson had it in his mind that he wanted to push Favre out the door and he wasn't going to negotiate. His only sticking point was he wouldn't trade him to the NFC. But when an AFC team made him an offer, even if it was for lesser value, he was going to take it because he wanted to be rid of him.

Of course he has value to the Jets over what they got out of the QB position last season (a point a few here who only discuss the record of the Jets vs. the Packers fail to really take into consideration).The Giants traded a player who is alot younger and will play longer.The Dolphins traded a guy who committed to 2 more years. After the redskins lost their DE to injury.And the Redskins gave up what a 6th rounder in 2010 is what it amounts to being different if the Jets make the playoffs?His value was where it was because of his play. But his age and noncommittal to any year past this one is what brought the value down. TT simply was not getting the offers of anything better. You act as if Thompson had a bunch of offers on the table.

 

[packersfan]

The Giants and Dolphins traded players who aren't as good and carried significantly higher durability questions and got more for them than the Packers got for Favre.

I'm not acting like Thompson had a lot of offers. On the contrary. My point is Thompson wanted Favre gone so badly that once he found an AFC team willing to deal, he made the deal even though he wasn't getting quality value (in my opinion) back in return. I could be wrong, but I would be willing to bet the player drafted with that second-round pick will never carry the value - even for a single season - that Brett Favre has.

That's what I call a fleecing. When a team gets significantly higher value back than what they gave up.

 

[sho nuff]

The Giants and Dolphins traded players who aren't as good and carried significantly higher durability questions and got more for them than the Packers got for Favre. I'm not acting like Thompson had a lot of offers. On the contrary. My point is Thompson wanted Favre gone so badly that once he found an AFC team willing to deal, he made the deal even though he wasn't getting quality value (in my opinion) back in return. I could be wrong, but I would be willing to bet the player drafted with that second-round pick will never carry the value - even for a single season - that Brett Favre has. That's what I call a fleecing. When a team gets significantly higher value back than what they gave up.

The Giants traded a player who is a 4 time pro bowler and 10 years younger than Favre. And if the Jets make the playoffs...the difference there is a 5th round pick.The Dolphins get a late round pick in 2010 is the difference in that trade.You are acting as if they got big time deals for these guys compared to Favre.Saying he settled for the low offer is acting like he just had other options in trading him. He got what the market was willing to pay.And yes...getting what will amount to a 2nd round pick for a 38 year old player who retired in April is pretty good value.The Jets got a great deal as Favre has been a big improvement over Pennington and Clemens from last year.But its not as if TT just let the guy go for a 5th rounder or something.And talk about fleecing...Taylor and Shockey have provided little to nothing to their respective teams. Maybe its just that the Saints and Redskins got fleeced far more than the Packers.

 

[packersfan]

He got what the market was willing to pay.

And if the market was willing to pay less than Favre was worth, that reinforces my belief that Thompson was more interested in getting rid of Favre than making the best possible decision for the team.ETA - I wouldn't deny the Saints and Redskins got fleeced in their deals. But that doesn't change my belief that the Packers did too.

 

[parasaurolophus]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.

They would ask you to believe that...

1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.

2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.

3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.

4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.

5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.

6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.

7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.

8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.

9. That this team has been marred by injuries.

Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

 

[JamesTheScot]

His value was where it was because of his play. But his age and noncommittal to any year past this one is what brought the value down. TT simply was not getting the offers of anything better. You act as if Thompson had a bunch of offers on the table.

Exactly.Saying your house is worth $200,000 is silly when no one in the market is willing to pay $200,000 for your house. Your house ia worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it's not on the market, your opinion about its worth is mere speculation. You never know what is worth until you put it on the market for real.TT put Favre on the market and the market determined his value.

 

[packersfan]

His value was where it was because of his play. But his age and noncommittal to any year past this one is what brought the value down. TT simply was not getting the offers of anything better. You act as if Thompson had a bunch of offers on the table.

Exactly.Saying your house is worth $200,000 is silly when no one in the market is willing to pay $200,000 for your house. Your house ia worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it's not on the market, your opinion about its worth is mere speculation. You never know what is worth until you put it on the market for real.TT put Favre on the market and the market determined his value.

And if the market is less than what is needed to make the best possible decision for your team, you have another optionon't sell.But that was never an option for Thompson. He was determined to be rid of Favre, even if it meant bringing back less for him in a trade than other teams received for players who aren't as good and ones who don't play arguably the most important position on the field. That was his decision and the Jets have benefited greatly from it.The Packers? Not so much so far.

 

[sho nuff]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.They would ask you to believe that...1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.9. That this team has been marred by injuries.Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

1. Its definitely not played as well. Whether it was the early injury to Wells, or Clifton nursing the bad knees all year and not playing as well. Not sure anyone who has watched this team cannot see that the Oline is not playing very well.2. Losing Corey Williams is part of it...the other is losing Cullen Jenkins early in the year and Pickett simply not playing well at all. Whether in the 1st quarter or the 4th. How in the hell is Favre making him play better?3. Favre's just went up after last night too I believe. As noted earlier, it also does not account for several things.4. He was hurt to start the year and has looked much better the past few games.5. What does that have to do with the QB position?6. They are still very good.7. Who is saying that is bad? Their inability to stop the run game is very bad.8. Its part of it for sure, but not all of that is on the QB now is it?9. It is...again, would Favre being around make those players not get hurt?Or maybe that all of these things combined have piled up on the team and the QB is still playing well...while Favre has struggled mightily at times this year and has been more wreckless with the ball.

 

[sho nuff]

His value was where it was because of his play. But his age and noncommittal to any year past this one is what brought the value down. TT simply was not getting the offers of anything better. You act as if Thompson had a bunch of offers on the table.

Exactly.Saying your house is worth $200,000 is silly when no one in the market is willing to pay $200,000 for your house. Your house ia worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it's not on the market, your opinion about its worth is mere speculation. You never know what is worth until you put it on the market for real.TT put Favre on the market and the market determined his value.

And if the market is less than what is needed to make the best possible decision for your team, you have another optionon't sell.But that was never an option for Thompson. He was determined to be rid of Favre, even if it meant bringing back less for him in a trade than other teams received for players who aren't as good and ones who don't play arguably the most important position on the field. That was his decision and the Jets have benefited greatly from it.The Packers? Not so much so far.

At the point he sold...don't sell was no longer an option.

 

[Phase of the Game]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.They would ask you to believe that...1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.9. That this team has been marred by injuries.Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

Or maybe that all of these things combined have piled up on the team and the QB is still playing well...while Favre has struggled mightily at times this year and has been more wreckless with the ball.

This is where you bias comes into play. Rodgers has not played well the last few games and you grossly over exagerate that Favre has played "struggled mightily" at times. Rodgers has struggled mightily at times as well this season.

 

[sho nuff]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.They would ask you to believe that...1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.9. That this team has been marred by injuries.Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

Or maybe that all of these things combined have piled up on the team and the QB is still playing well...while Favre has struggled mightily at times this year and has been more wreckless with the ball.

This is where you bias comes into play. Rodgers has not played well the last few games and you grossly over exagerate that Favre has played "struggled mightily" at times. Rodgers has struggled mightily at times as well this season.

I think Favre has struggled a bit more than Rodgers in some games...especially with throwing the ball to the wrong team.3 games in particular (Oakland, KC, SD).Though, I admit, reading that again above did sound bad. Take out mightily.Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

 

[packersfan]

His value was where it was because of his play. But his age and noncommittal to any year past this one is what brought the value down. TT simply was not getting the offers of anything better. You act as if Thompson had a bunch of offers on the table.

Exactly.Saying your house is worth $200,000 is silly when no one in the market is willing to pay $200,000 for your house. Your house ia worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it's not on the market, your opinion about its worth is mere speculation. You never know what is worth until you put it on the market for real.TT put Favre on the market and the market determined his value.

And if the market is less than what is needed to make the best possible decision for your team, you have another optionon't sell.But that was never an option for Thompson. He was determined to be rid of Favre, even if it meant bringing back less for him in a trade than other teams received for players who aren't as good and ones who don't play arguably the most important position on the field. That was his decision and the Jets have benefited greatly from it.The Packers? Not so much so far.

At the point he sold...don't sell was no longer an option.

And that was due in my opinion to mistakes made by both parties. My point all along was it never should have reached the point it got to and I put just as much blame for that on Thompson as I do on Favre. I think both sides handled that situation horribly.

 

[MCguidance]

I don't think I've really weighed in, and I really still will refrain from doing so (surely I'm not reading all these posts, lol) but I think you cannot truly evaluate the trade until the season is over. At which point a truer value is possible with where the Jets finish and the draft pick the Packers receive.

 

[sho nuff]

His value was where it was because of his play. But his age and noncommittal to any year past this one is what brought the value down. TT simply was not getting the offers of anything better. You act as if Thompson had a bunch of offers on the table.

Exactly.Saying your house is worth $200,000 is silly when no one in the market is willing to pay $200,000 for your house. Your house ia worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it's not on the market, your opinion about its worth is mere speculation. You never know what is worth until you put it on the market for real.TT put Favre on the market and the market determined his value.

And if the market is less than what is needed to make the best possible decision for your team, you have another optionon't sell.But that was never an option for Thompson. He was determined to be rid of Favre, even if it meant bringing back less for him in a trade than other teams received for players who aren't as good and ones who don't play arguably the most important position on the field. That was his decision and the Jets have benefited greatly from it.The Packers? Not so much so far.

At the point he sold...don't sell was no longer an option.

And that was due in my opinion to mistakes made by both parties. My point all along was it never should have reached the point it got to and I put just as much blame for that on Thompson as I do on Favre. I think both sides handled that situation horribly.

I agree there.And the relationship there is a bad one between those two.But Favre and McCarthy may not be so bad...Favre was classy enough to call McCarthy and say Congrats on the new baby.

 

[parasaurolophus]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.They would ask you to believe that...1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.9. That this team has been marred by injuries.Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

1. Its definitely not played as well. Whether it was the early injury to Wells, or Clifton nursing the bad knees all year and not playing as well. Not sure anyone who has watched this team cannot see that the Oline is not playing very well.2. Losing Corey Williams is part of it...the other is losing Cullen Jenkins early in the year and Pickett simply not playing well at all. Whether in the 1st quarter or the 4th. How in the hell is Favre making him play better?3. Favre's just went up after last night too I believe. As noted earlier, it also does not account for several things.4. He was hurt to start the year and has looked much better the past few games.5. What does that have to do with the QB position?6. They are still very good.7. Who is saying that is bad? Their inability to stop the run game is very bad.8. Its part of it for sure, but not all of that is on the QB now is it?9. It is...again, would Favre being around make those players not get hurt?Or maybe that all of these things combined have piled up on the team and the QB is still playing well...while Favre has struggled mightily at times this year and has been more wreckless with the ball.

1. I didnt say they were playing well. Thats actually irrelevant. Why arent the same guys from last year who were pretty much thrown together on a whim LAST YEAR not playing well? What changed? Again hyou have to make many guesses to say they arent as good. Maybe they were never good?2. They could have afforded to keep williams. They obviously felt he was expendable and really thought the line was fine as they didnt try too hard to replace him. Maybe they are just on the field a bit too much? 3. Favre is in a new system. There is obviously an adjustment period. The jets air attack obviously was not as strong as the Packs either. What changed?4. But the Oline is going downhill? I realize run blocking and pass blocking are different animals. But again what has changed?5. Well when it is used as an excuse for why the Pack lost a game where Rodgers played like crap, it involves the QB.6. They are better.7. When they are scoring TDs and creating turnovers, that should overcome any problems they had stopping the run. If the offense could hold and move the ball, the rushing yards given up would be way less. 8. Nothing is ever "all" on any player. However you have two VERY alike situations as in last year vs this year. Yet the play is worse? Look at it this way... If favre would have been back would people have predicted that the offense would have been worse than last year? Wouldnt they have thought it would be better? Heck people thought it would be better with Rodgers. 9. How is this team marred by injuries? ALL NFL teams have guys miss a game here and there. Thats just how it goes. Its not like if I look at a depth chart today i have to say who the heck are these freakin guys? again bottom line is we can point to a million different things, or we can pretty much point to one. But I would like to hear why with Favre the packers would have REGRESSED on offense. Especially when they should have improved.

 

[simey]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

 

[sho nuff]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.They would ask you to believe that...1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.9. That this team has been marred by injuries.Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

1. Its definitely not played as well. Whether it was the early injury to Wells, or Clifton nursing the bad knees all year and not playing as well. Not sure anyone who has watched this team cannot see that the Oline is not playing very well.2. Losing Corey Williams is part of it...the other is losing Cullen Jenkins early in the year and Pickett simply not playing well at all. Whether in the 1st quarter or the 4th. How in the hell is Favre making him play better?3. Favre's just went up after last night too I believe. As noted earlier, it also does not account for several things.4. He was hurt to start the year and has looked much better the past few games.5. What does that have to do with the QB position?6. They are still very good.7. Who is saying that is bad? Their inability to stop the run game is very bad.8. Its part of it for sure, but not all of that is on the QB now is it?9. It is...again, would Favre being around make those players not get hurt?Or maybe that all of these things combined have piled up on the team and the QB is still playing well...while Favre has struggled mightily at times this year and has been more wreckless with the ball.

1. I didnt say they were playing well. Thats actually irrelevant. Why arent the same guys from last year who were pretty much thrown together on a whim LAST YEAR not playing well? What changed? Again hyou have to make many guesses to say they arent as good. Maybe they were never good?2. They could have afforded to keep williams. They obviously felt he was expendable and really thought the line was fine as they didnt try too hard to replace him. Maybe they are just on the field a bit too much? 3. Favre is in a new system. There is obviously an adjustment period. The jets air attack obviously was not as strong as the Packs either. What changed?4. But the Oline is going downhill? I realize run blocking and pass blocking are different animals. But again what has changed?5. Well when it is used as an excuse for why the Pack lost a game where Rodgers played like crap, it involves the QB.6. They are better.7. When they are scoring TDs and creating turnovers, that should overcome any problems they had stopping the run. If the offense could hold and move the ball, the rushing yards given up would be way less. 8. Nothing is ever "all" on any player. However you have two VERY alike situations as in last year vs this year. Yet the play is worse? Look at it this way... If favre would have been back would people have predicted that the offense would have been worse than last year? Wouldnt they have thought it would be better? Heck people thought it would be better with Rodgers. 9. How is this team marred by injuries? ALL NFL teams have guys miss a game here and there. Thats just how it goes. Its not like if I look at a depth chart today i have to say who the heck are these freakin guys? again bottom line is we can point to a million different things, or we can pretty much point to one. But I would like to hear why with Favre the packers would have REGRESSED on offense. Especially when they should have improved.

1. I watched them last year...they were playing well, Clifton was a pro-bowler. He is certainly not looking anywhere near to a probowler right now. The holes were not there early on in the running game like they were down the stretch last year, and now pass blocking is becoming crappy. Yes, they are the same people the past several games, but they are not playing the same. Why? Sure, it must just be the change in QB I guess. 2. They should have resigned Williams during the season and never letting him get to the point of needing to franchise him. That said, he was not worth the franchise amount and has done very little for Cleveland so far this year and Jolly is playing very well.3. In which system is it ok to throw the ball to the other team and let them run it back for a TD. The new system excuse is getting old. Pennington is in a new system too and he has not had the same struggles that Favre has had.4. Yes, the line is going downhill...they are doing better in run blocking, the holes have been better the past few games. But they are getting beat in the pass rush. Now, Clifton did miss the Tennessee game which caused a bit of a shuffle and put the rookie Sitton out there at guard as Colledge moved to tackle. But overall, the pass blocking has been poor the past 2 games.5. This makes no sense. It was not an excuse why they lost...it was a sarcastic things said that Brett would have somehow made Crosby make that kick. Sucks he missed it, and is usually right on...but Favre vs. Rodgers would not have made that kick go straight.6. An extra year for Jones and Jennings will do that...also adding Nelson over an older Koren Robinson (who was not around most of the year anyway) helps.7. 150 a game. Apparently it did not help when they allowed Minny to go straight down the field doing little more than running the ball. And its not as if they are stopping the running game early in games either. And I don't think it would account for the about 50 yard difference they are giving up per game this year vs. last year.8. Funny, a few here are trying to argue its all about losing Favre...while the majority realize the QB play has not been the issue here. Of course with a veteran QB they offense would most likely be better...especially had he never retired and done the same prep he did for last year. And only a small minority of people thought it would be better with Rodgers.9. I don't recall saying they were marred with injuries. Only that Barnett out for the year now, Jenkins lost earlier in the year for the season, Al Harris missing a few games, Grant's injuries, Jones' injuries, Clifton dinged up, Wells missing time early in the year. Compared to last season, they have had more significant injuries this year. To some very key players. Their best LB, one of their best Dlineman, their best Olineman, one of their top 3 WRs, their starting RB, and a guy who was their top corner (Woodson is most definitely the top guy now).You can point to a million things...pointing to one is a very small minded thing to do IMO because of the numerous things that have gone on with this team and how people are playing.I don't think the offense would be improved over last year with Favre around. Not with the early injuries to Grant and Wells, and the play of the Oline being what it is.

 

[sho nuff]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

Sure...though, I think struggling to pick up a blitz or make the right read and hit a throw is a bit different than a long time vet continuing to be careless with the ball and throwing it to the wrong team as often as Favre has.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

Sure...though, I think struggling to pick up a blitz or make the right read and hit a throw is a bit different than a long time vet continuing to be careless with the ball and throwing it to the wrong team as often as Favre has.

He is also completing almost 70% of his passes.

 

[Warhogs]

I have been reading this thread on and off all season and can not believe it is still carrying on. I know this may be hard for some people to believe but this is one of those trades that I believe both teams are happy with.

Rodgers is much better than I thought he would be.

Favre and all the other FA acquisitions have the Jets atop their division.

I think this has worked out well for both clubs.

 

[sho nuff]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

Sure...though, I think struggling to pick up a blitz or make the right read and hit a throw is a bit different than a long time vet continuing to be careless with the ball and throwing it to the wrong team as often as Favre has.

He is also completing almost 70% of his passes.

So maybe he has not struggled picking up the offense as much as some people want to use it as an excuse?

 

[Phase of the Game]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

Sure...though, I think struggling to pick up a blitz or make the right read and hit a throw is a bit different than a long time vet continuing to be careless with the ball and throwing it to the wrong team as often as Favre has.

He is also completing almost 70% of his passes.

So maybe he has not struggled picking up the offense as much as some people want to use it as an excuse?

So maybe that shows how good he is since he had to learn a new offense, struggled at times and is still completing almost 70% of his passes and is 2nd in the NFL in that category.

 

[sho nuff]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

Sure...though, I think struggling to pick up a blitz or make the right read and hit a throw is a bit different than a long time vet continuing to be careless with the ball and throwing it to the wrong team as often as Favre has.

He is also completing almost 70% of his passes.

So maybe he has not struggled picking up the offense as much as some people want to use it as an excuse?

So maybe that shows how good he is since he had to learn a new offense, struggled at times and is still completing almost 70% of his passes and is 2nd in the NFL in that category.

And has throw more INTs than anyone else this year.

 

[H.K.]

TT put Favre on the market (excluding a chunk of the market TT was scared to deal with) and that determined his value.

fixed

 

[Phase of the Game]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

Sure...though, I think struggling to pick up a blitz or make the right read and hit a throw is a bit different than a long time vet continuing to be careless with the ball and throwing it to the wrong team as often as Favre has.

He is also completing almost 70% of his passes.

So maybe he has not struggled picking up the offense as much as some people want to use it as an excuse?

So maybe that shows how good he is since he had to learn a new offense, struggled at times and is still completing almost 70% of his passes and is 2nd in the NFL in that category.

And has throw more INTs than anyone else this year.

Yes he has and he has his team at 7-3 and in first place in the AFC East. He is 3rd in TDs thrown, 2nd in completion percentage and 6th overall in passer rating.

 

[Challenge Everything]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.They would ask you to believe that...1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.9. That this team has been marred by injuries.Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

One glaring omission from the "Packers would be the same with Favre" facts is Rodgers and his inability to get rid of the ball early in the reads. Rodgers holds on to the ball far to long and far too often. Even the biggest Favre hater and Rodgers lover has to admit this. The above fact alone gives the defense more time to cover, more time to rush, more blitzes to run, more man-to-man, more guys near the line to stop the run. The above fact also hurts run production, causes the O-Line to look worse or "get exposed", does not move the ball on offense as well, forces more punts, gives the opposing offense a shorter field.I would guarantee that if Rodgers develops any kind of "Hot Read" within the first 2 seconds of the snap, the offense moves much better. Rodgers continues to drop back and only throws the ball when the receiver is at the end of his route. If Rodgers throws the ball at any time allowing his receivers to make a play on the ball, the offense moves much better. This is the big difference between Rodgers and Favre, and is some of the root of the problem. The QB position makes decisions to move the offense. If those decisions are poor or lack confidence... no moving of the ball. Rodgers needs to learn this and learn this fast. Some would say he should have learned this already, after 3+ years in the league.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The top 3 posters in this thread are:

Ookie Pringle with 29 posts.

Next we have...

Phase of the Game with 45 posts.

Finally,

coming in the lead at the current reading, we have...

....

sho nuff with a staggering 132 posts.

 

[hauser42]

When someone shows me where Brett Favre won a Super Bowl then I will believe that Favre would be the answer to the Packers problems for this year.

When the Packers won the Super Bowl recall that the defense was also #1 in the NFL that year right along with the #1 offense. I dont think I have lost my mind but if I recall Desmond Howard scored the big TD and was the games MVP.

2008 Packers are not as good for many reasons.

1. Team has been hit by different injuries.

2. It is playing tougher schedule than they did in 2007.

3. Offense getting use to a new QB.

4. Both lines just not playing good solid football.

Favre quit on the Packers and it was not the other way around. He decided he needed to move on with his life only to change his mind months later. What was the team to do wait till the season start to make sure Brett would not come back?? How stupid would TT look if he did not have a replacement ready for the day Brett left football. If the Packers had no young player ready for Brett leaving, all we would hear is how this team was not ready to move on.

 

[encaitar]

Both have struggled, IMO, Favre a bit more than Rodgers and Rodgers struggling some was expected as a first year starter.

I think Favre struggling some in a offense he didn't know (and had no practice with in training camp or preseason) was expected too.

Sure...though, I think struggling to pick up a blitz or make the right read and hit a throw is a bit different than a long time vet continuing to be careless with the ball and throwing it to the wrong team as often as Favre has.

He is also completing almost 70% of his passes.

So maybe he has not struggled picking up the offense as much as some people want to use it as an excuse?

So maybe that shows how good he is since he had to learn a new offense, struggled at times and is still completing almost 70% of his passes and is 2nd in the NFL in that category.

And has throw more INTs than anyone else this year.

You act like his receivers are running wide open routes with no defenders on them and Favre is just throwing terrible passes. Most routes in the NFL are timing routes. The QB throws the ball before the WR even makes his break. You know this Sho. Obviously the more familiar you are with your receivers, the less mistakes in timing(i.e. less interceptions) you will have. Thursday's game was the first time that Favre truly looked to be in sync with his WRs.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Favre quit on the Packers and it was not the other way around. He decided he needed to move on with his life only to change his mind months later. What was the team to do wait till the season start to make sure Brett would not come back?? How stupid would TT look if he did not have a replacement ready for the day Brett left football. If the Packers had no young player ready for Brett leaving, all we would hear is how this team was not ready to move on.

This notion that Favre quit on the team is utter nonsense. To even think that Thompson was welcoming Favre back let alone going to allow Favre to compete for his position is just plain stupid. Favre did retire but to think Thompson was not wanting Favre to do that is also ignorant to think. Thompson had a player ready to go in Rodgers had Favre returned. Plus, he ended up drafting two rookies to compete for the #2. And, before you go ranting about supposed facts, hauser42, I lived in Green Bay during all of this mess, so I heard the same news reports on television, saw the same Press Gazette articles, heard the same Harry Sydney and Chris Havel, that you did.

 

[teamroc]

When someone shows me where Brett Favre won a Super Bowl then I will believe that Favre would be the answer to the Packers problems for this year. When the Packers won the Super Bowl recall that the defense was also #1 in the NFL that year right along with the #1 offense. I dont think I have lost my mind but if I recall Desmond Howard scored the big TD and was the games MVP.2008 Packers are not as good for many reasons.1. Team has been hit by different injuries.2. It is playing tougher schedule than they did in 2007.3. Offense getting use to a new QB.4. Both lines just not playing good solid football.Favre quit on the Packers and it was not the other way around. He decided he needed to move on with his life only to change his mind months later. What was the team to do wait till the season start to make sure Brett would not come back?? How stupid would TT look if he did not have a replacement ready for the day Brett left football. If the Packers had no young player ready for Brett leaving, all we would hear is how this team was not ready to move on.

Rodgers was drafted 3 years ago. What are you even talking about?News flash, when Brett retired they didn't go get Rodgers. HE WAS ALREADY ON THE TEAM.Welcome Favre back, extend Rodgers. Keep both. Very simple.

 

[griz145389]

the people suggesting that QB isnt the issue at all simply have their head in the sand.They would ask you to believe that...1. The Oline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.2. The Dline all of a sudden deteriorated drastically in one year.3. That Favre's QB rating being below Rodgers has everything to do with Rodgers and nothing to do with the fact that Favre is on a new team.4. That Ryan Grant lost a step.5. Mason Crosby is a dead lock to hit 52 yarders.6. That the GB receiving corps is not better than it was last year.7. That the defense creating turnovers and scores is somehow bad.8. Getting 50 less yards per game has no effect on the time the defense spends on the field, but averaging 2 yards less rushing is killing them.9. That this team has been marred by injuries.Or maybe it could simply be that the single biggest change made, and its not even close, was that the team traded Brett Favre. This huge change obviously has affected all aspects of the game and the team.

1. Its definitely not played as well. Whether it was the early injury to Wells, or Clifton nursing the bad knees all year and not playing as well. Not sure anyone who has watched this team cannot see that the Oline is not playing very well.2. Losing Corey Williams is part of it...the other is losing Cullen Jenkins early in the year and Pickett simply not playing well at all. Whether in the 1st quarter or the 4th. How in the hell is Favre making him play better?3. Favre's just went up after last night too I believe. As noted earlier, it also does not account for several things.4. He was hurt to start the year and has looked much better the past few games.5. What does that have to do with the QB position?6. They are still very good.7. Who is saying that is bad? Their inability to stop the run game is very bad.8. Its part of it for sure, but not all of that is on the QB now is it?9. It is...again, would Favre being around make those players not get hurt?Or maybe that all of these things combined have piled up on the team and the QB is still playing well...while Favre has struggled mightily at times this year and has been more wreckless with the ball.

1. I didnt say they were playing well. Thats actually irrelevant. Why arent the same guys from last year who were pretty much thrown together on a whim LAST YEAR not playing well? What changed? Again hyou have to make many guesses to say they arent as good. Maybe they were never good?2. They could have afforded to keep williams. They obviously felt he was expendable and really thought the line was fine as they didnt try too hard to replace him. Maybe they are just on the field a bit too much? 3. Favre is in a new system. There is obviously an adjustment period. The jets air attack obviously was not as strong as the Packs either. What changed?4. But the Oline is going downhill? I realize run blocking and pass blocking are different animals. But again what has changed?5. Well when it is used as an excuse for why the Pack lost a game where Rodgers played like crap, it involves the QB.6. They are better.7. When they are scoring TDs and creating turnovers, that should overcome any problems they had stopping the run. If the offense could hold and move the ball, the rushing yards given up would be way less. 8. Nothing is ever "all" on any player. However you have two VERY alike situations as in last year vs this year. Yet the play is worse? Look at it this way... If favre would have been back would people have predicted that the offense would have been worse than last year? Wouldnt they have thought it would be better? Heck people thought it would be better with Rodgers. 9. How is this team marred by injuries? ALL NFL teams have guys miss a game here and there. Thats just how it goes. Its not like if I look at a depth chart today i have to say who the heck are these freakin guys? again bottom line is we can point to a million different things, or we can pretty much point to one. But I would like to hear why with Favre the packers would have REGRESSED on offense. Especially when they should have improved.

The best thing to do is to ignore Sho nuff. He refuses to see when his arguments have been shown to be wrong. Earlier in the thread he stated that the Titans GM and Ted Thompson had similar GM styles concerning free agency. I then pointed out that while the Titans signed several free agents this year that are starting for them, while the packers signed one ( a punter). However instead of admitting he was wrong, he refused to concede the point and again said that they had the same style of approaching free agency. Even if you extend it out to the last 3 years of free agency, the Packers have signed 4 players that are currently starting on their team, while the Titans have signed 11. But Sho nuff refuses to concede anything. I'm pretty sure if he said the sky was green, and you said no, its blue, he would argue with it. Then when presented with a picture, he would find a way to still say that the sky is green.I don't think Ted Thompson is the worst general manager out there. When he does things well, I give him credit for it. When he does things poorly, I don't understand why some people blindly support him. The team is at 4-5 right now, and a lot of that has to lie on his shoulders. If people wanted to praise him for 13-3, he also deserves to hear it for being 4-5.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm not sure what Favre has done to make people think the Jets are geniuses for bringing him aboard and the Packers are idiots for letting him go. Has Favre done anything Pennington couldn't do? Has Favre even been more impressive than Pennington?

I don't know what the Packers' record would be with Favre, but I'm not sure it would be better than 4-5. I don't recall (off the top of my head) any games that Rodgers "lost" that Favre would have won.

The difference between Green Bay in '07 and Green Bay in '08 isn't Favre or Rodgers. It's Grant.

 

[encaitar]

I'm not sure what Favre has done to make people think the Jets are geniuses for bringing him aboard and the Packers are idiots for letting him go. Has Favre done anything Pennington couldn't do? Has Favre even been more impressive than Pennington?I don't know what the Packers' record would be with Favre, but I'm not sure it would be better than 4-5. I don't recall (off the top of my head) any games that Rodgers "lost" that Favre would have won. The difference between Green Bay in '07 and Green Bay in '08 isn't Favre or Rodgers. It's Grant.

You've got to be fishing here right? You really think that Pennington would've taken the Jets down the field in the fourth quarter to go ahead, then proceeded to do the same after a miracle catch by Moss to send it into overtime? There's no way. Favre's arm gives the Jets a ton more options than they had with Pennington. I mean, look at Miami. They're more effective with Ronnie Brown taking the snaps than Pennington.

 

[Underachievers]

I'm not sure what Favre has done to make people think the Jets are geniuses for bringing him aboard and the Packers are idiots for letting him go. Has Favre done anything Pennington couldn't do? Has Favre even been more impressive than Pennington?I don't know what the Packers' record would be with Favre, but I'm not sure it would be better than 4-5. I don't recall (off the top of my head) any games that Rodgers "lost" that Favre would have won. The difference between Green Bay in '07 and Green Bay in '08 isn't Favre or Rodgers. It's Grant.

Ryan Grant had all of 6 carries through the first 6 games of '07...yet the Packers started the season 5-1. This season the Packers have lost 3 games by a TOTAL of 7 points. Do you think Brett's 16 season's of experience could have conjured up those extra few points needed to win those games? In two of those games...the Packer offense managed a total of 1 TD. In last weeks Viking game (a 1 point loss) the Vikings were blessed with 2 safties. Did the Packers have 2 safties in Brett's entire career with the Packers?I am not questioning if the Favre trade was the right move for the future of Green Bay as Rodgers has shown flashes of brilliance. But for the here and now....Brett would been the better choice at QB for the Packers and I am not sure how anyone can argue that.

 

[bcr8f]

Ryan Grant had all of 6 carries through the first 6 games of '07...yet the Packers started the season 5-1. This season the Packers have lost 3 games by a TOTAL of 7 points. Do you think Brett's 16 season's of experience could have conjured up those extra few points needed to win those games? In two of those games...the Packer offense managed a total of 1 TD. In last weeks Viking game (a 1 point loss) the Vikings were blessed with 2 safties. Did the Packers have 2 safties in Brett's entire career with the Packers?I am not questioning if the Favre trade was the right move for the future of Green Bay as Rodgers has shown flashes of brilliance. But for the here and now....Brett would been the better choice at QB for the Packers and I am not sure how anyone can argue that.

Sure it's possible, but Rodgers is still 24 and they needed to transition to the future. They are playing for years to come not just this year.If Favre did come back they probably would have loist Rodgers. Anyone saying they are only looking at this yerar are ignoring the obvious. You can't separate the future from the present.

 

[Underachievers]

Ryan Grant had all of 6 carries through the first 6 games of '07...yet the Packers started the season 5-1. This season the Packers have lost 3 games by a TOTAL of 7 points. Do you think Brett's 16 season's of experience could have conjured up those extra few points needed to win those games? In two of those games...the Packer offense managed a total of 1 TD. In last weeks Viking game (a 1 point loss) the Vikings were blessed with 2 safties. Did the Packers have 2 safties in Brett's entire career with the Packers?I am not questioning if the Favre trade was the right move for the future of Green Bay as Rodgers has shown flashes of brilliance. But for the here and now....Brett would been the better choice at QB for the Packers and I am not sure how anyone can argue that.

Sure it's possible, but Rodgers is still 24 and they needed to transition to the future. They are playing for years to come not just this year.If Favre did come back they probably would have loist Rodgers. Anyone saying they are only looking at this yerar are ignoring the obvious. You can't separate the future from the present.

Some of us "old guys" remember the 2+ decades before Brett when the Packers (and Green Bay) were pretty much the worst the NFL had to offer. I kid you not when I say that a 5 or 6 win SEASON in those days were cause for extreme optimism for the following season. Of course more times than not that it was followed by another 4 or 5 win season.Because of those ugly times....I personally was not exactly eager to give up a proven winner (Brett) for someone who was essentially a rookie. Sure we may have had Brett services for just one more season before he finally called it quits. But it was also one more season that the odds were good that the Packers would once again field a team capable of making a SB run. Would Rodgers have walked after the 2009 season if Brett had comeback? Maybe..maybe not. Is Rodgers the future at QB of the Green Bay Packers? Maybe...maybe not...the jury is still out IMO. I like what he has shown so far...but afterall..it is only 9 games into his rookie season. To me...the Packers faced an uncertain future at QB no matter if Brett played for them this season or not. So I did not see the problem with delaying that future for another season and keeping a proven QB and unquestioned team leader behind center.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I'm not sure what Favre has done to make people think the Jets are geniuses for bringing him aboard and the Packers are idiots for letting him go. Has Favre done anything Pennington couldn't do? Has Favre even been more impressive than Pennington?I don't know what the Packers' record would be with Favre, but I'm not sure it would be better than 4-5. I don't recall (off the top of my head) any games that Rodgers "lost" that Favre would have won. The difference between Green Bay in '07 and Green Bay in '08 isn't Favre or Rodgers. It's Grant.

What? The Jets have been bad for years. Last year they had a carousel at QB, this year they have ONE QB, and they are winning the division, and you don't know what Favre did to make the Jets better? I don't think you are being serious. In addition to adding Faneca and Richardson to help improve the run game, a consistent passer has helped open things up for Jones the same way that Favre opened things up for Grant down the stretch last year.So, look at the facts. Grant is not as impactful, the number of first downs are down, the defense is struggling mightily because they are having to stay on the field longer (McCarthy admitted as much). Trickles down from the QB, in spite of the fact that his numbers have looked "O.k." (if averaging 160 yards against the Vikings weak secondary is O.k.) the team hasn't been supported by his play the way it was with Favre.Ohhh man I think I was trolled. If so, good play, you mimic the mindset of a rabid Thompson zealot well.

 

[bcr8f]

Some of us "old guys" remember the 2+ decades before Brett when the Packers (and Green Bay) were pretty much the worst the NFL had to offer. I kid you not when I say that a 5 or 6 win SEASON in those days were cause for extreme optimism for the following season. Of course more times than not that it was followed by another 4 or 5 win season.Because of those ugly times....I personally was not exactly eager to give up a proven winner (Brett) for someone who was essentially a rookie. Sure we may have had Brett services for just one more season before he finally called it quits. But it was also one more season that the odds were good that the Packers would once again field a team capable of making a SB run. Would Rodgers have walked after the 2009 season if Brett had comeback? Maybe..maybe not. Is Rodgers the future at QB of the Green Bay Packers? Maybe...maybe not...the jury is still out IMO. I like what he has shown so far...but afterall..it is only 9 games into his rookie season. To me...the Packers faced an uncertain future at QB no matter if Brett played for them this season or not. So I did not see the problem with delaying that future for another season and keeping a proven QB and unquestioned team leader behind center.

I'm one of thoseb old guys. I remember all those teams after Lombardi left. I also remember how Sherman ran the team into the ground as GM and am happy with a real GM this time.The organization is what's really better now and I trust them to make the right decisions.Brett is 39 and could play 1 or 2 more years. What happens when Rodgers leaves in FA and Brett retires the next year? McCarthy said Rodgers was reday to tyake over and I trust his judgment. Why do you know better than the GM and HC?

 

[The Kerminator]

I know that Brett Favre with ability to read defenses, call audibles, find his hot read, and his quick release would have helped this team. I also know is 69.8% pass completetion percentage this year would have helped. I know that opposing defenses would have different game plans if Favre was the QB and not Rodgers. I know that McCarthy would probably not be so conservative if Favre was the QB and the team likely would have tried to get into better field position against the Vikings. I know that Favre has his team in first place and the Packers have a chance to be looking at 4-6 on Sunday. I know that you will never understand any of this.

How do you know that Brett, with his penchant for throwing INTs would not have hurt this team.How do you know that the differing gameplan for a defense would really help? Fact is, you don't.

I cannot explain McCarthy not trying to do more there. He did in the first half with 9 seconds left, but not at the end of the game.

I know that Favre plays for a different team than the Packers so their records are as useless as comparing Jeff Garcia and Drew Brees last year and claiming the Saints should have gone after Garcia rather than Brees since the Bucs made the playoffs and the Saints didn't.

I know that you will never admit that Favre is not playing as well as he did this year...nor will you admit that there are many reasons the team is 4-5 right now and that QB play is about the least of their worries.

The play of Rodgers is part of their worries and one of the reasons the team is 4-5. Also, for the TT lovers in the crowd....if he has done such a great job of building this team then why are they 4-5? The offensive line is in shambles, the linebackers are failing against the run, there is no depth at QB, and they keep a punter that is terrible. If TT has done so well shouldn't the Packers have a better record than 4-5 considering they were 13-3 last year? Of course, not having Brett Favre as the QB has had nothing to do with it.

I would agree that not having Brett Favre has something to do with the Packers being 4-5. But people are putting too much emphasis on that. The fact the Packers are 4-5 this year compared to last year are multiple:1) The Packers have a more difficult schedule than last year

2) Everything went right for the Pack last year. That wasn't going to happen again, even with Favre.

3) Poor play of the offensive line

4) Poor play of the defensive line and linebackers

5) Poor punting leading to losing the field position battle

6) Ryan Grant struggling and a poor running game

7) Conservative play calling by McCarthy (Not sure if this is because he is trying to protect Rodgers or protect the poor defense)

8) No Brett Favre

Favre is on the list, I just don't think he's at the top of the list.

And having Favre has helped the NY Jets. I just don't think he is the only reason, or even the most important reason. They made a lot of free-agent moves before they even traded for Favre or even knew Favre would be available to them. They made these moves when Chad Pennington was still the QB. With the year Pennington is having in Miami it could be argued that the Jets would be just as good this year with him at QB as with Favre. The Jets defense has done a good job of allowing the team to survive Favre's INTs. Who knows how good they might be if Pennington was at QB and they didn't have to overcome them? The Packers don't have the defense to survive Favre's INTs this year either. The one thing that Favre does bring to the Jets is the confidence and knowing that they will be in any game. The Jets are also playing a last-place schedule and have played a Tom Brady-less New England team. A lot of factors have gone into the Jets turn-around besides just Favre.

To look at the records of the Packers and the Jets and use that as a comparison of Favre vs. Rodgers is just silly. If that were the case, then you could argue that Pennington is better than Favre. Miami only had one win last year. This year they already have 5. Does that make Pennington a better QB than Favre? I don't think anybody would argue that.

As a Packer fan I would much rather have Favre at QB. But I am also very happy with the way Rodgers has played. So far this season has been a big disappointment but that has very little to do with the play of Rodgers. Let's hope they can get a win this Sunday against the Bears and finish the season out strong.

Go PACK Go!

 

[Underachievers]

Some of us "old guys" remember the 2+ decades before Brett when the Packers (and Green Bay) were pretty much the worst the NFL had to offer. I kid you not when I say that a 5 or 6 win SEASON in those days were cause for extreme optimism for the following season. Of course more times than not that it was followed by another 4 or 5 win season.

Because of those ugly times....I personally was not exactly eager to give up a proven winner (Brett) for someone who was essentially a rookie. Sure we may have had Brett services for just one more season before he finally called it quits. But it was also one more season that the odds were good that the Packers would once again field a team capable of making a SB run.

Would Rodgers have walked after the 2009 season if Brett had comeback? Maybe..maybe not. Is Rodgers the future at QB of the Green Bay Packers? Maybe...maybe not...the jury is still out IMO. I like what he has shown so far...but afterall..it is only 9 games into his rookie season.

To me...the Packers faced an uncertain future at QB no matter if Brett played for them this season or not. So I did not see the problem with delaying that future for another season and keeping a proven QB and unquestioned team leader behind center.

I'm one of thoseb old guys. I remember all those teams after Lombardi left. I also remember how Sherman ran the team into the ground as GM and am happy with a real GM this time.The organization is what's really better now and I trust them to make the right decisions.

Brett is 39 and could play 1 or 2 more years. What happens when Rodgers leaves in FA and Brett retires the next year? McCarthy said Rodgers was reday to tyake over and I trust his judgment. Why do you know better than the GM and HC?

I do not pretend to know more than Ted or Mike. But because they say that Aaron is ready to take over by no means guarantees success and future stability at the QB position. I am also not sure why it was a given that Aaron would have left if Brett came back another season. I do not recall Aaron ever making that statement or even insinuating it for that matter.

 

[hauser42]

Favre quit on the Packers and it was not the other way around. He decided he needed to move on with his life only to change his mind months later. What was the team to do wait till the season start to make sure Brett would not come back?? How stupid would TT look if he did not have a replacement ready for the day Brett left football. If the Packers had no young player ready for Brett leaving, all we would hear is how this team was not ready to move on.

This notion that Favre quit on the team is utter nonsense. To even think that Thompson was welcoming Favre back let alone going to allow Favre to compete for his position is just plain stupid. Favre did retire but to think Thompson was not wanting Favre to do that is also ignorant to think. Thompson had a player ready to go in Rodgers had Favre returned. Plus, he ended up drafting two rookies to compete for the #2. And, before you go ranting about supposed facts, hauser42, I lived in Green Bay during all of this mess, so I heard the same news reports on television, saw the same Press Gazette articles, heard the same Harry Sydney and Chris Havel, that you did.

First thing you are showing your lack of knowledge by saying you listen to Havel and Sydney. Harry is bitter because he is no longer in the NFL as the Packer's figured out he was useless. Harry keeps bashing every move the Packers move and talking bout his days with the 49ers.Havel has his head crammed up Brett's rectum since he made a money on writing Favre's booke. Havel is not worth a dam when it comes to information about the NFL. He only knew certain things about the Packers and lacked knowledge about NFC Central teams and their players. He was suppose to be a Packer insider, but only thing he was inside was Brett's inner circle.

Packers were supposedly to have a solid team coming back from last year, so if you still wanted to play football and have another run at a Super Bowl would you call a meeting to leave?? It is called quitting on a good thing. Packers were willing to take him back. When Favre met with the coach he was not sure he could give the dedication that the team wanted, or how long he would be back. Team made a choice to keep the plans as is and not bring back a great player that was not sure that he would give 100% during the week.

 

[hauser42]

When someone shows me where Brett Favre won a Super Bowl then I will believe that Favre would be the answer to the Packers problems for this year. When the Packers won the Super Bowl recall that the defense was also #1 in the NFL that year right along with the #1 offense. I dont think I have lost my mind but if I recall Desmond Howard scored the big TD and was the games MVP.2008 Packers are not as good for many reasons.1. Team has been hit by different injuries.2. It is playing tougher schedule than they did in 2007.3. Offense getting use to a new QB.4. Both lines just not playing good solid football.Favre quit on the Packers and it was not the other way around. He decided he needed to move on with his life only to change his mind months later. What was the team to do wait till the season start to make sure Brett would not come back?? How stupid would TT look if he did not have a replacement ready for the day Brett left football. If the Packers had no young player ready for Brett leaving, all we would hear is how this team was not ready to move on.

Rodgers was drafted 3 years ago. What are you even talking about?News flash, when Brett retired they didn't go get Rodgers. HE WAS ALREADY ON THE TEAM.Welcome Favre back, extend Rodgers. Keep both. Very simple.

Rodgers did not have a ton of playing time with the offense in the regular season. Brett knew the offense and how the guys aroung him ran routes. If you dont think there is a time to get that timing down you are kidding yourself. Practice is just that practice, and not at full speed with defense coming after you.No need to bring back Brett after the plans were made to move on. Was a franchise choice to move on. When you quit your job should your company let you come back six months later becaue you miss it, even though you have already been replaced??

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am pleased with having McCarthy as a coach and Thompson as a GM. Both have performed admirably. I loved watching Favre and still do. I wish he had not precipitated the events he did, but understand his having done so. Under the circumstances there needed to be response. A team needs a plan for the current season and for the future. A team needs to feel unified in purpose and plan. Favre made that difficult with his decisions and actions. Some say the packers should have accepted those difficulties, they may be right. Some say not, they may also be right. I am pleased that the Packers got something for a retired player. I am pleased I don't have to have the memory of Favre polluted by seeing him in Viking or Bear colors. I am pleased Favre is doing mostly quite well in N.Y. and that he is adding to his career numbers. I particularly like that he is extending his ironman streak. I find much of the argument in this thread to be based on animus, against Favre, against the packers, against Thompson. The comments from those who wish ill for the team I have followed since the early 60's do not give me much pause.

Rodgers is doing well. The Packers still have rebuilding to do. The archetects of that rebuilding have done very well as indicated by last years results which were better than expected. This years results are not in, but the overall trend is pleasing to me. I understand that a team may take a step back occassionally while still generally advancing towards the future. With or without Favre this years team is not last years team. Injuries and some aging at key spots has seen to that.