Wreckincrew
Footballguy
Hey! What about the Lio..........Oh, yeah. Nevermind.az_prof said:Good luck with Rodgers for the next few years Cheeseheads. Vikes and Bears will be laughing all the way to the playoffs.
Packers = Fail.
Hey! What about the Lio..........Oh, yeah. Nevermind.az_prof said:Good luck with Rodgers for the next few years Cheeseheads. Vikes and Bears will be laughing all the way to the playoffs.
Packers = Fail.
so?does that make the decision to go with Rodgers the wrong one? Because fans voted for Favre over a QB playing much better than he is (Rivers...and some could argue Pennington has as well).I see that Brett Favre was named to another Pro Bowl.![]()
I just had to throw that fact in here about Favre making the Pro Bowl and waiting to see what type of response you would give.so?does that make the decision to go with Rodgers the wrong one? Because fans voted for Favre over a QB playing much better than he is (Rivers...and some could argue Pennington has as well).I see that Brett Favre was named to another Pro Bowl.![]()
Why don't you see the pro bowl roster thread and gauge the reaction of just about everyone who agrees Favre making it was crap?I guess that whole thread is just full of Favre haters huh?I just had to throw that fact in here about Favre making the Pro Bowl and waiting to see what type of response you would give.so?does that make the decision to go with Rodgers the wrong one? Because fans voted for Favre over a QB playing much better than he is (Rivers...and some could argue Pennington has as well).I see that Brett Favre was named to another Pro Bowl.![]()
So what makes that thread more valuable or a better indicator than the actual pro-bowl voting?Why don't you see the pro bowl roster thread and gauge the reaction of just about everyone who agrees Favre making it was crap?I guess that whole thread is just full of Favre haters huh?I just had to throw that fact in here about Favre making the Pro Bowl and waiting to see what type of response you would give.so?does that make the decision to go with Rodgers the wrong one? Because fans voted for Favre over a QB playing much better than he is (Rivers...and some could argue Pennington has as well).I see that Brett Favre was named to another Pro Bowl.![]()
Not at all. We all know who those are here and you are one of the leaders. Oh yes!!!I guess that whole thread is just full of Favre haters huh?I just had to throw that fact in here about Favre making the Pro Bowl and waiting to see what type of response you would give.so?does that make the decision to go with Rodgers the wrong one? Because fans voted for Favre over a QB playing much better than he is (Rivers...and some could argue Pennington has as well).I see that Brett Favre was named to another Pro Bowl.![]()
You think pro bowl voting is a good thing? You see, I can deflect with another question too.Pro bowl voting has generally been a sham for years. Most people see that.So what makes that thread more valuable or a better indicator than the actual pro-bowl voting?Why don't you see the pro bowl roster thread and gauge the reaction of just about everyone who agrees Favre making it was crap?I guess that whole thread is just full of Favre haters huh?I just had to throw that fact in here about Favre making the Pro Bowl and waiting to see what type of response you would give.so?does that make the decision to go with Rodgers the wrong one? Because fans voted for Favre over a QB playing much better than he is (Rivers...and some could argue Pennington has as well).I see that Brett Favre was named to another Pro Bowl.![]()
And just for fun I looked up that the Jets with Favre are 9-5 and the Packers with Rodgers are 5-9. I also see that Brett Favre was named to the Pro Bowl and that Rodgers hasn't won a game yet in crunch time.Oh....and some other tidbits...One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.-- Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Even during the lean years, coach Dan Devine never finished worse than 2-5-2. Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg and Lindy Infante, meanwhile, never finished worse than 2-7 as head coaches. This year’s team needs one more victory just to reach that dreadful level.And just for fun, looked up the DVOA for QBs this year.Rodgers ranked 11th.Favre ranked 21st.Again...I don't take that stat as the end all be all, just like QB rating. They make a good case for their rankings and how they got to the numbers...but in the end, its a stat made up by formulas and taking different things into consideration...its not an end all be all to really saying what each guy would do or how much #4 would have helped this Packer team.
Yawn...more nonsense from Ookie...so shocking that he fell back on the team's record and a sham that Favre got named to the pro-bowl in one of the biggest snubs out there this year.Yup, the team is ineffective for sure...is that all Rodgers? Nope...sorry.And just for fun I looked up that the Jets with Favre are 9-5 and the Packers with Rodgers are 5-9. I also see that Brett Favre was named to the Pro Bowl and that Rodgers hasn't won a game yet in crunch time.Oh....and some other tidbits...One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.-- Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Even during the lean years, coach Dan Devine never finished worse than 2-5-2. Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg and Lindy Infante, meanwhile, never finished worse than 2-7 as head coaches. This year’s team needs one more victory just to reach that dreadful level.And just for fun, looked up the DVOA for QBs this year.Rodgers ranked 11th.Favre ranked 21st.Again...I don't take that stat as the end all be all, just like QB rating. They make a good case for their rankings and how they got to the numbers...but in the end, its a stat made up by formulas and taking different things into consideration...its not an end all be all to really saying what each guy would do or how much #4 would have helped this Packer team.
I don't see where Ookie said it was all on Rodgers. He didn't. It isn't all on Rodgers. He threw out facts. Favre making the Pro Bowl is a fact. It is a fact that Rodgers hasn't lead the team to a win yet in crunch tim.Won-loss records are facts and interesting information on how far the Packers have fallen with Favre gone. I don't see how that is nonsense at all....I take that back....of course that would be nonsense to you.Yawn...more nonsense from Ookie...so shocking that he fell back on the team's record and a sham that Favre got named to the pro-bowl in one of the biggest snubs out there this year.Yup, the team is ineffective for sure...is that all Rodgers? Nope...sorry.And just for fun I looked up that the Jets with Favre are 9-5 and the Packers with Rodgers are 5-9. I also see that Brett Favre was named to the Pro Bowl and that Rodgers hasn't won a game yet in crunch time.Oh....and some other tidbits...One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.-- Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Even during the lean years, coach Dan Devine never finished worse than 2-5-2. Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg and Lindy Infante, meanwhile, never finished worse than 2-7 as head coaches. This year’s team needs one more victory just to reach that dreadful level.And just for fun, looked up the DVOA for QBs this year.Rodgers ranked 11th.Favre ranked 21st.Again...I don't take that stat as the end all be all, just like QB rating. They make a good case for their rankings and how they got to the numbers...but in the end, its a stat made up by formulas and taking different things into consideration...its not an end all be all to really saying what each guy would do or how much #4 would have helped this Packer team.
So as a Packer fan you are happy with 5-9 and the following that Ookie posted above:One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Please don't tell me that one draft pick from the Jets will make up for this season.How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? It is looking better every week!
What is this thread about?Its about the decision to go with Rodgers over Favre.Throwing out records and Favre making the probowl are specifically done to question the decision.I did not claim Ookie said it was all on Rodgers...I asked him a question.I don't see where Ookie said it was all on Rodgers. He didn't. It isn't all on Rodgers. He threw out facts. Favre making the Pro Bowl is a fact. It is a fact that Rodgers hasn't lead the team to a win yet in crunch tim.Won-loss records are facts and interesting information on how far the Packers have fallen with Favre gone. I don't see how that is nonsense at all....I take that back....of course that would be nonsense to you.Yawn...more nonsense from Ookie...so shocking that he fell back on the team's record and a sham that Favre got named to the pro-bowl in one of the biggest snubs out there this year.Yup, the team is ineffective for sure...is that all Rodgers? Nope...sorry.And just for fun I looked up that the Jets with Favre are 9-5 and the Packers with Rodgers are 5-9. I also see that Brett Favre was named to the Pro Bowl and that Rodgers hasn't won a game yet in crunch time.Oh....and some other tidbits...One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.-- Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Even during the lean years, coach Dan Devine never finished worse than 2-5-2. Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg and Lindy Infante, meanwhile, never finished worse than 2-7 as head coaches. This year’s team needs one more victory just to reach that dreadful level.And just for fun, looked up the DVOA for QBs this year.Rodgers ranked 11th.Favre ranked 21st.Again...I don't take that stat as the end all be all, just like QB rating. They make a good case for their rankings and how they got to the numbers...but in the end, its a stat made up by formulas and taking different things into consideration...its not an end all be all to really saying what each guy would do or how much #4 would have helped this Packer team.
Where did Phurfur say he was happy with 5-9? Just taking your stance from your post to me above in reference to Oookie.No, as a Packer fan Im not happy with 5-9. Saying the decision was the right one does not mean anyone is happy with the record.The pick won't make up for it.The point is...we don't think Favre would have been enough to change this team to the point of the 13-3 they were last year. Not this year's team.Making the decision the right one for the franchise.A 9-7 season, with no title would have made keeping Favre a failure IMO.Instead, we see Rodgers can play (not that he is perfect or does not need to improve)...we get him a year of experience.Rather than setting the team back another year in his development while we get to watch Favre play another year.Barring a SB win...bringing him back was for nostalgia and little more.So as a Packer fan you are happy with 5-9 and the following that Ookie posted above:One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Please don't tell me that one draft pick from the Jets will make up for this season.How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? It is looking better every week!
And why can't someone question the decision? Those facts presented are examples of what has taken place since that decision. In case you haven't noticed(which we all know you haven't) those facts presented don't make the decision look that good at this point.I'd say this one is quite disturbing as a Packer fan.What is this thread about?Its about the decision to go with Rodgers over Favre.I don't see where Ookie said it was all on Rodgers. He didn't. It isn't all on Rodgers. He threw out facts. Favre making the Pro Bowl is a fact. It is a fact that Rodgers hasn't lead the team to a win yet in crunch tim.Won-loss records are facts and interesting information on how far the Packers have fallen with Favre gone. I don't see how that is nonsense at all....I take that back....of course that would be nonsense to you.Yawn...more nonsense from Ookie...so shocking that he fell back on the team's record and a sham that Favre got named to the pro-bowl in one of the biggest snubs out there this year.Yup, the team is ineffective for sure...is that all Rodgers? Nope...sorry.And just for fun I looked up that the Jets with Favre are 9-5 and the Packers with Rodgers are 5-9. I also see that Brett Favre was named to the Pro Bowl and that Rodgers hasn't won a game yet in crunch time.Oh....and some other tidbits...And just for fun, looked up the DVOA for QBs this year.
Rodgers ranked 11th.
Favre ranked 21st.
Again...I don't take that stat as the end all be all, just like QB rating. They make a good case for their rankings and how they got to the numbers...but in the end, its a stat made up by formulas and taking different things into consideration...its not an end all be all to really saying what each guy would do or how much #4 would have helped this Packer team.
One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.
-- Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team.
Even during the lean years, coach Dan Devine never finished worse than 2-5-2. Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg and Lindy Infante, meanwhile, never finished worse than 2-7 as head coaches. This year’s team needs one more victory just to reach that dreadful level.
Throwing out records and Favre making the probowl are specifically done to question the decision.
People can question the decision...I have never claimed they could not.Yes...those facts are examples of what has taken place...I have no problem with that.And why can't someone question the decision? Those facts presented are examples of what has taken place since that decision. In case you haven't noticed(which we all know you haven't) those facts presented don't make the decision look that good at this point.
I'd say this one is quite disturbing as a Packer fan.
One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.
It makes someone with some common sense including the announcer for the Packers, Wayne Larrivee, think the Packers are missing the leadership of Brett Favre.
I haven't read the entire thread but I can't believe this hasn't been covered 100 times. I'm happy with Rogders going forward, I'm a Packer Season Ticket holder so that is all that counts. I'm in this for the long haul not just this season.Edit: I am not here to argue with anyone or to change anyones mind. I am just giving my opinion.So as a Packer fan you are happy with 5-9 and the following that Ookie posted above:One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Please don't tell me that one draft pick from the Jets will make up for this season.How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? It is looking better every week!
I do not hate Rodgers, and I believe he has the makings of being a pretty good quarterback in this league. I also don't think now that it was the worst decision ever made after having seen Rodgers play this year. Before the season I was a lot more critical of this move because I had not seen anything that would have led me to believe that Rodgers would be playing as well as he has.People can question the decision...I have never claimed they could not. Yeah but you will minimize anything negative with Rodgers and minimize anything Ggood about Favre.Yes...those facts are examples of what has taken place...I have no problem with that.And why can't someone question the decision? Those facts presented are examples of what has taken place since that decision. In case you haven't noticed(which we all know you haven't) those facts presented don't make the decision look that good at this point.
I'd say this one is quite disturbing as a Packer fan.
One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.
It makes someone with some common sense including the announcer for the Packers, Wayne Larrivee, think the Packers are missing the leadership of Brett Favre.
But those facts also don't tell the whole story of what happened and what else has factored in to the current record. Thats the point. You have no problem with them, but dismiss any validity they have?
Just posting the record and saying...well, thats it...bad decision (which is what posting the record implies)...is foolish IMO. It leaves out so many other things. There are many players on both teams, but Favres leaving surely has to do with some of the record changes on both teams, not to mention that the consensus going into the year is that the packers had a much more talented roster than the Jets.
It is disturbing. And while Favre may have the record a little better where the dropoff does not look as bad...would he have been enough to improve the team to the point of a contender this year? I don't think so. And thats what it would take to make the decision the wrong won. Its impossible to say say for sure, but I believe they would have at least won the division. Once you get to the playoffs, anything can happen.
A few more wins would be meaningless. Seriously?
Again...yes, they are missing the leadership...Im not denying that (no matter how many times you claim I ignore it)...Im saying it would not be enough for this team. Do you get that? Most of the packers losses this year have been by a small margin. Could leadership have changed a few of those games? Maybe, maybe not. But to think it couldn't make a difference is as bad as claiming that the Packers would be 13-3 again this year if Favre were there.
While off-topic, this is still aThis Packers team has some decent players on it, however there are some holes to fill as well, holes that can not be filled solely through the draft. That is where my biggest issue is with Thompson. He has yet to make the type of free agency moves that would have been necessary to make this team better. In 4 years, he has signed one very good player, 3 marginal players, and then a bunch of filler guys. I'm not advocating that he go out and sign every high priced first tier free agent that is available, but it would be nice to see him at least sign a few guys that are on the second tier.
Minimize anything negative...or put it in perspective...and no, I don't minimize anything positive Favre did...I put it in perspective of how much it would help this current team.Dismiss any validity...no...not at all. There is nothing invalid about the team's records...they are what they are. But they are not the only thing that tells the story of this decision.I do not hate Rodgers, and I believe he has the makings of being a pretty good quarterback in this league. I also don't think now that it was the worst decision ever made after having seen Rodgers play this year. Before the season I was a lot more critical of this move because I had not seen anything that would have led me to believe that Rodgers would be playing as well as he has.People can question the decision...I have never claimed they could not. Yeah but you will minimize anything negative with Rodgers and minimize anything Ggood about Favre.Yes...those facts are examples of what has taken place...I have no problem with that.And why can't someone question the decision? Those facts presented are examples of what has taken place since that decision. In case you haven't noticed(which we all know you haven't) those facts presented don't make the decision look that good at this point.
I'd say this one is quite disturbing as a Packer fan.
One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.
It makes someone with some common sense including the announcer for the Packers, Wayne Larrivee, think the Packers are missing the leadership of Brett Favre.
But those facts also don't tell the whole story of what happened and what else has factored in to the current record. Thats the point. You have no problem with them, but dismiss any validity they have?
Just posting the record and saying...well, thats it...bad decision (which is what posting the record implies)...is foolish IMO. It leaves out so many other things. There are many players on both teams, but Favres leaving surely has to do with some of the record changes on both teams, not to mention that the consensus going into the year is that the packers had a much more talented roster than the Jets.
It is disturbing. And while Favre may have the record a little better where the dropoff does not look as bad...would he have been enough to improve the team to the point of a contender this year? I don't think so. And thats what it would take to make the decision the wrong won. Its impossible to say say for sure, but I believe they would have at least won the division. Once you get to the playoffs, anything can happen.
A few more wins would be meaningless. Seriously?
Again...yes, they are missing the leadership...Im not denying that (no matter how many times you claim I ignore it)...Im saying it would not be enough for this team. Do you get that? Most of the packers losses this year have been by a small margin. Could leadership have changed a few of those games? Maybe, maybe not. But to think it couldn't make a difference is as bad as claiming that the Packers would be 13-3 again this year if Favre were there.
The other issue I have had with Ted Thompson before the season was his unwillingness to aquire anyone in free agency. I know we hear over and over again that Favre was not the only new addition to the Jets this season that is causing them to be a better team. The three biggest players that they got in my opinion were Favre, Jenkins, and Faneca. If the Packers had signed Jenkins and Faneca, I think they would be looking pretty good right now. A good DT really hides a lot of the flaws of linebackers, in addition to the impact he makes on the line. A guard like Faneca would clearly help the line that we have and take some pressure off the other players on the line.
This Packers team has some decent players on it, however there are some holes to fill as well, holes that can not be filled solely through the draft. That is where my biggest issue is with Thompson. He has yet to make the type of free agency moves that would have been necessary to make this team better. In 4 years, he has signed one very good player, 3 marginal players, and then a bunch of filler guys. I'm not advocating that he go out and sign every high priced first tier free agent that is available, but it would be nice to see him at least sign a few guys that are on the second tier.
Minimize anything negative...or put it in perspective...and no, I don't minimize anything positive Favre did...I put it in perspective of how much it would help this current team.I do not hate Rodgers, and I believe he has the makings of being a pretty good quarterback in this league. I also don't think now that it was the worst decision ever made after having seen Rodgers play this year. Before the season I was a lot more critical of this move because I had not seen anything that would have led me to believe that Rodgers would be playing as well as he has.People can question the decision...I have never claimed they could not. Yeah but you will minimize anything negative with Rodgers and minimize anything Ggood about Favre.Yes...those facts are examples of what has taken place...I have no problem with that.And why can't someone question the decision? Those facts presented are examples of what has taken place since that decision. In case you haven't noticed(which we all know you haven't) those facts presented don't make the decision look that good at this point.
I'd say this one is quite disturbing as a Packer fan.
One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.
It makes someone with some common sense including the announcer for the Packers, Wayne Larrivee, think the Packers are missing the leadership of Brett Favre.
But those facts also don't tell the whole story of what happened and what else has factored in to the current record. Thats the point. You have no problem with them, but dismiss any validity they have?
Just posting the record and saying...well, thats it...bad decision (which is what posting the record implies)...is foolish IMO. It leaves out so many other things. There are many players on both teams, but Favres leaving surely has to do with some of the record changes on both teams, not to mention that the consensus going into the year is that the packers had a much more talented roster than the Jets.
It is disturbing. And while Favre may have the record a little better where the dropoff does not look as bad...would he have been enough to improve the team to the point of a contender this year? I don't think so. And thats what it would take to make the decision the wrong won. Its impossible to say say for sure, but I believe they would have at least won the division. Once you get to the playoffs, anything can happen.
A few more wins would be meaningless. Seriously?
Again...yes, they are missing the leadership...Im not denying that (no matter how many times you claim I ignore it)...Im saying it would not be enough for this team. Do you get that? Most of the packers losses this year have been by a small margin. Could leadership have changed a few of those games? Maybe, maybe not. But to think it couldn't make a difference is as bad as claiming that the Packers would be 13-3 again this year if Favre were there.
The other issue I have had with Ted Thompson before the season was his unwillingness to aquire anyone in free agency. I know we hear over and over again that Favre was not the only new addition to the Jets this season that is causing them to be a better team. The three biggest players that they got in my opinion were Favre, Jenkins, and Faneca. If the Packers had signed Jenkins and Faneca, I think they would be looking pretty good right now. A good DT really hides a lot of the flaws of linebackers, in addition to the impact he makes on the line. A guard like Faneca would clearly help the line that we have and take some pressure off the other players on the line.
This Packers team has some decent players on it, however there are some holes to fill as well, holes that can not be filled solely through the draft. That is where my biggest issue is with Thompson. He has yet to make the type of free agency moves that would have been necessary to make this team better. In 4 years, he has signed one very good player, 3 marginal players, and then a bunch of filler guys. I'm not advocating that he go out and sign every high priced first tier free agent that is available, but it would be nice to see him at least sign a few guys that are on the second tier.
There is a difference between minimizing what he did...and minimizing the effect some of you claim it had. Someday you might recognize that.Minimize anything negative...or put it in perspective...and no, I don't minimize anything positive Favre did...I put it in perspective of how much it would help this current team.I do not hate Rodgers, and I believe he has the makings of being a pretty good quarterback in this league. I also don't think now that it was the worst decision ever made after having seen Rodgers play this year. Before the season I was a lot more critical of this move because I had not seen anything that would have led me to believe that Rodgers would be playing as well as he has.People can question the decision...I have never claimed they could not. Yeah but you will minimize anything negative with Rodgers and minimize anything Ggood about Favre.Yes...those facts are examples of what has taken place...I have no problem with that.And why can't someone question the decision? Those facts presented are examples of what has taken place since that decision. In case you haven't noticed(which we all know you haven't) those facts presented don't make the decision look that good at this point.
I'd say this one is quite disturbing as a Packer fan.
One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.
It makes someone with some common sense including the announcer for the Packers, Wayne Larrivee, think the Packers are missing the leadership of Brett Favre.
But those facts also don't tell the whole story of what happened and what else has factored in to the current record. Thats the point. You have no problem with them, but dismiss any validity they have?
Just posting the record and saying...well, thats it...bad decision (which is what posting the record implies)...is foolish IMO. It leaves out so many other things. There are many players on both teams, but Favres leaving surely has to do with some of the record changes on both teams, not to mention that the consensus going into the year is that the packers had a much more talented roster than the Jets.
It is disturbing. And while Favre may have the record a little better where the dropoff does not look as bad...would he have been enough to improve the team to the point of a contender this year? I don't think so. And thats what it would take to make the decision the wrong won. Its impossible to say say for sure, but I believe they would have at least won the division. Once you get to the playoffs, anything can happen.
A few more wins would be meaningless. Seriously?
Again...yes, they are missing the leadership...Im not denying that (no matter how many times you claim I ignore it)...Im saying it would not be enough for this team. Do you get that? Most of the packers losses this year have been by a small margin. Could leadership have changed a few of those games? Maybe, maybe not. But to think it couldn't make a difference is as bad as claiming that the Packers would be 13-3 again this year if Favre were there.
The other issue I have had with Ted Thompson before the season was his unwillingness to aquire anyone in free agency. I know we hear over and over again that Favre was not the only new addition to the Jets this season that is causing them to be a better team. The three biggest players that they got in my opinion were Favre, Jenkins, and Faneca. If the Packers had signed Jenkins and Faneca, I think they would be looking pretty good right now. A good DT really hides a lot of the flaws of linebackers, in addition to the impact he makes on the line. A guard like Faneca would clearly help the line that we have and take some pressure off the other players on the line.
This Packers team has some decent players on it, however there are some holes to fill as well, holes that can not be filled solely through the draft. That is where my biggest issue is with Thompson. He has yet to make the type of free agency moves that would have been necessary to make this team better. In 4 years, he has signed one very good player, 3 marginal players, and then a bunch of filler guys. I'm not advocating that he go out and sign every high priced first tier free agent that is available, but it would be nice to see him at least sign a few guys that are on the second tier.![]()
1. I don't recall saying it was a good thing. I recall asking why the thread was a better indicator. Which you did not answer at all.2. I didn't reflect anything. I asked why an anonymous group of board posters is better than an anonymous group of pro bowl voters. Which I must admit you did not answer.sho nuff said:You think pro bowl voting is a good thing? You see, I can deflect with another question too.Pro bowl voting has generally been a sham for years. Most people see that.So what makes that thread more valuable or a better indicator than the actual pro-bowl voting?Why don't you see the pro bowl roster thread and gauge the reaction of just about everyone who agrees Favre making it was crap?I guess that whole thread is just full of Favre haters huh?I just had to throw that fact in here about Favre making the Pro Bowl and waiting to see what type of response you would give.so?does that make the decision to go with Rodgers the wrong one? Because fans voted for Favre over a QB playing much better than he is (Rivers...and some could argue Pennington has as well).I see that Brett Favre was named to another Pro Bowl.![]()
Do you think Favre deserves to be in over Pennington or Rivers?
Think Collins deserves to be there?
I guess this guy is just a Favre hater too...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_...?urn=nfl,129633
It's a very good stat and your correct that it doesn't really show how much better the Packers would be with Favre.There's no doubt that Rodgers is putting up good numbers.And just for fun, looked up the DVOA for QBs this year.Rodgers ranked 11th.Favre ranked 21st.Again...I don't take that stat as the end all be all, just like QB rating. They make a good case for their rankings and how they got to the numbers...but in the end, its a stat made up by formulas and taking different things into consideration...its not an end all be all to really saying what each guy would do or how much #4 would have helped this Packer team.
I disagree with most of what sho-nuff has to say on this subject, well some of what he has to say anyway, and I wouldn't have handled the situation the way GB did even if I'd decided to go a different direction than Favre BUT I like this post. If Ted Thompson had come out and said something like this I would have had no problem with their decision. Now that I'm happy can we wrap this thread up?Where did Phurfur say he was happy with 5-9? Just taking your stance from your post to me above in reference to Oookie.No, as a Packer fan Im not happy with 5-9. Saying the decision was the right one does not mean anyone is happy with the record.The pick won't make up for it.The point is...we don't think Favre would have been enough to change this team to the point of the 13-3 they were last year. Not this year's team.Making the decision the right one for the franchise.A 9-7 season, with no title would have made keeping Favre a failure IMO.Instead, we see Rodgers can play (not that he is perfect or does not need to improve)...we get him a year of experience.Rather than setting the team back another year in his development while we get to watch Favre play another year.Barring a SB win...bringing him back was for nostalgia and little more.So as a Packer fan you are happy with 5-9 and the following that Ookie posted above:One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Please don't tell me that one draft pick from the Jets will make up for this season.How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? It is looking better every week!
Favre is a glorified has-been who only made the Pro Bowl on career accomplishments and not based on his play this year. Same way Faneca got voted to the Pro Bowl. This year Rodgers>>>>>>>>>>>>>Favre. Last years GB defense>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This years GB defense. The defense is to blame for the Packers poor record not Rodgers.
The defense, TT, the coaching and Rodgers are to blame for the Packers poor record.Favre is a glorified has-been who only made the Pro Bowl on career accomplishments and not based on his play this year. Same way Faneca got voted to the Pro Bowl. This year Rodgers>>>>>>>>>>>>>Favre. Last years GB defense>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This years GB defense. The defense is to blame for the Packers poor record not Rodgers.
Don't forget the horrible running game GB has. Grant has disappeared for large parts of the season.Favre is a glorified has-been who only made the Pro Bowl on career accomplishments and not based on his play this year. Same way Faneca got voted to the Pro Bowl. This year Rodgers>>>>>>>>>>>>>Favre. Last years GB defense>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This years GB defense. The defense is to blame for the Packers poor record not Rodgers.
Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?
Don't forget the horrible running game GB had in the first part of last season.Don't forget the horrible running game GB has. Grant has disappeared for large parts of the season.Favre is a glorified has-been who only made the Pro Bowl on career accomplishments and not based on his play this year. Same way Faneca got voted to the Pro Bowl. This year Rodgers>>>>>>>>>>>>>Favre. Last years GB defense>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This years GB defense. The defense is to blame for the Packers poor record not Rodgers.
How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?
Yawn. Same old uninformed opinions.Favre is a glorified has-been who only made the Pro Bowl on career accomplishments and not based on his play this year. Same way Faneca got voted to the Pro Bowl. This year Rodgers>>>>>>>>>>>>>Favre. Last years GB defense>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This years GB defense. The defense is to blame for the Packers poor record not Rodgers.
Wouldn't be better by the entire body of work versus two games?If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games? Would not surprise me if Seattle beat the Jets this week too. All this with TJ having a big season.
Obviously you guys come from the sho nuff School of Reasoning. Guess what...QBs have bad games during the course of a season. Favre was named to the Pro Bowl and the Jets have gone from a 4-12 win team to a 9-5 team. Go ahead and rip on Favre all you want but those are facts.And please......before any of you morons come back and say Favre isn't the only reason the Jets are 9-5.....no one is saying that Favre is the only reason.How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?
They have seen too much of sho's work here.Wouldn't be better by the entire body of work versus two games?If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games? Would not surprise me if Seattle beat the Jets this week too. All this with TJ having a big season.
Because A. they had no offer for a first rounder from the Vikings.B. You don't do anything to help one of your biggest rivals and have to play against the guy twice.They would not trade with them, because it would be crazy.People asked me why the Packers last year did not go get Thomas Jones for what the Jets got him...I asked them if they seriously thought the Bears would give him up to the Packers as easily as they did to the Jets.So if the trade of Favre is for the future, then why wouldn't they have traded him to the Vikings and got a sure 1st rounder, plus more?I know hind sight is 20/20 and they felt they had a team to challenge this year, but wouldn't they be helping themselves and hurting the Vikings for the future at the same time. I never really understood why they wouldn't do the trade with the Vikings. Is it because of the backlash from fans or what?I'm not trying to take sides or anything, I just never understood why teams don't trade with the highest bidder, especially in the case of Favre, when you know it was a year or two max reward for the team getting him.
Nah...no need to wrap it up.The thing is...this mirrors much of what I have said on the topic.And yes, I wish Ted would have said such a thing. I said when it all happened that TT screwed up in how he handled it and took things to the media and described everything.And Murphy too for telling everyone he would compete and blah blah blah.I disagree with most of what sho-nuff has to say on this subject, well some of what he has to say anyway, and I wouldn't have handled the situation the way GB did even if I'd decided to go a different direction than Favre BUT I like this post. If Ted Thompson had come out and said something like this I would have had no problem with their decision. Now that I'm happy can we wrap this thread up?Where did Phurfur say he was happy with 5-9? Just taking your stance from your post to me above in reference to Oookie.No, as a Packer fan Im not happy with 5-9. Saying the decision was the right one does not mean anyone is happy with the record.The pick won't make up for it.The point is...we don't think Favre would have been enough to change this team to the point of the 13-3 they were last year. Not this year's team.Making the decision the right one for the franchise.A 9-7 season, with no title would have made keeping Favre a failure IMO.Instead, we see Rodgers can play (not that he is perfect or does not need to improve)...we get him a year of experience.Rather than setting the team back another year in his development while we get to watch Favre play another year.Barring a SB win...bringing him back was for nostalgia and little more.So as a Packer fan you are happy with 5-9 and the following that Ookie posted above:One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.Two more losses would mean a 1-8 finish, the worst over the final nine games of a season in 50 years and tied for the worst in the history of the team. Please don't tell me that one draft pick from the Jets will make up for this season.How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? It is looking better every week!
Id add a few more things in there before I got to Rodgers.Might fall under coaching...but dumb penalties...not all of that can a coach fix.Special teams.Injuries to key players.The defense, TT, the coaching and Rodgers are to blame for the Packers poor record.Favre is a glorified has-been who only made the Pro Bowl on career accomplishments and not based on his play this year. Same way Faneca got voted to the Pro Bowl. This year Rodgers>>>>>>>>>>>>>Favre. Last years GB defense>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This years GB defense. The defense is to blame for the Packers poor record not Rodgers.
Favre has had more than 2 bad games though.And quit with the bash sho nuff when a post has nothing to do with me...really makes you look petty and childish.Yes..QBs have bad games...Rodgers has too.Favre had some last year too.I think the point was...you should not be having that bad of games against bad teams like that.Obviously you guys come from the sho nuff School of Reasoning. Guess what...QBs have bad games during the course of a season. Favre was named to the Pro Bowl and the Jets have gone from a 4-12 win team to a 9-5 team. Go ahead and rip on Favre all you want but those are facts.And please......before any of you morons come back and say Favre isn't the only reason the Jets are 9-5.....no one is saying that Favre is the only reason.How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?
But my point is why do teams do this? You should be making trades to help your team get better, regardless of who you are trading with.Wouldn't the Vikings be helping the Packers by giving them a first round pick? (which they would have done in a heartbeat)Because A. they had no offer for a first rounder from the Vikings.B. You don't do anything to help one of your biggest rivals and have to play against the guy twice.They would not trade with them, because it would be crazy.People asked me why the Packers last year did not go get Thomas Jones for what the Jets got him...I asked them if they seriously thought the Bears would give him up to the Packers as easily as they did to the Jets.So if the trade of Favre is for the future, then why wouldn't they have traded him to the Vikings and got a sure 1st rounder, plus more?I know hind sight is 20/20 and they felt they had a team to challenge this year, but wouldn't they be helping themselves and hurting the Vikings for the future at the same time. I never really understood why they wouldn't do the trade with the Vikings. Is it because of the backlash from fans or what?I'm not trying to take sides or anything, I just never understood why teams don't trade with the highest bidder, especially in the case of Favre, when you know it was a year or two max reward for the team getting him.
Helping a division rival with the one piece they really need is not always helping your team.But my point is why do teams do this? You should be making trades to help your team get better, regardless of who you are trading with.Wouldn't the Vikings be helping the Packers by giving them a first round pick? (which they would have done in a heartbeat)Because A. they had no offer for a first rounder from the Vikings.B. You don't do anything to help one of your biggest rivals and have to play against the guy twice.They would not trade with them, because it would be crazy.People asked me why the Packers last year did not go get Thomas Jones for what the Jets got him...I asked them if they seriously thought the Bears would give him up to the Packers as easily as they did to the Jets.So if the trade of Favre is for the future, then why wouldn't they have traded him to the Vikings and got a sure 1st rounder, plus more?I know hind sight is 20/20 and they felt they had a team to challenge this year, but wouldn't they be helping themselves and hurting the Vikings for the future at the same time. I never really understood why they wouldn't do the trade with the Vikings. Is it because of the backlash from fans or what?I'm not trying to take sides or anything, I just never understood why teams don't trade with the highest bidder, especially in the case of Favre, when you know it was a year or two max reward for the team getting him.
But I am going back to the point that you have made repeatedly - that the Packers made the trade for the future and not for this year (which I totally agree with). And I think that is what would make it an easy decision to get the most for him to help your team.Helping a division rival with the one piece they really need is not always helping your team.But my point is why do teams do this? You should be making trades to help your team get better, regardless of who you are trading with.Wouldn't the Vikings be helping the Packers by giving them a first round pick? (which they would have done in a heartbeat)Because A. they had no offer for a first rounder from the Vikings.B. You don't do anything to help one of your biggest rivals and have to play against the guy twice.They would not trade with them, because it would be crazy.People asked me why the Packers last year did not go get Thomas Jones for what the Jets got him...I asked them if they seriously thought the Bears would give him up to the Packers as easily as they did to the Jets.So if the trade of Favre is for the future, then why wouldn't they have traded him to the Vikings and got a sure 1st rounder, plus more?I know hind sight is 20/20 and they felt they had a team to challenge this year, but wouldn't they be helping themselves and hurting the Vikings for the future at the same time. I never really understood why they wouldn't do the trade with the Vikings. Is it because of the backlash from fans or what?I'm not trying to take sides or anything, I just never understood why teams don't trade with the highest bidder, especially in the case of Favre, when you know it was a year or two max reward for the team getting him.