How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (4 Viewers)

[bcr8f]

[quote name='sho nuff' post='9704370' date='Dec 18 2008, 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)

Helping a division rival with the one piece they really need is not always helping your team.

Going to the Vikings is seen as treason by some. Besides they can get a 1st round pick if the Jets make the Super Bowl. A 2nd if they make the playoffs.

The Vikings denied any interest.

By going to the Jets Packer fans can root for him without hurting ourselves.

 

[Phase of the Game]

If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?

Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.

How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?

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.

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.

No the point is you guys try and nitpick things to bash Favre about. The season is 16 games and now you fall back to he should not have bad games against bad teams like that. Guess what, QBs have bad games against good and bad teams. Keep spinning, sho.By the way, here are the NFL ranks of passing defense for those "bad" teams.Oakland 9thBuffalo 11thNew England #15San Fran #25Spin...spin....spin, sho!!!

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

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.

Drew Bledsoe.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?

Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.

How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?

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.

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.

No the point is you guys try and nitpick things to bash Favre about. The season is 16 games and now you fall back to he should not have bad games against bad teams like that. Guess what, QBs have bad games against good and bad teams. Keep spinning, sho.By the way, here are the NFL ranks of passing defense for those "bad" teams.Oakland 9thBuffalo 11thNew England #15San Fran #25Spin...spin....spin, sho!!!

 

[sho nuff]

If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?

Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.

How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?

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.

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.

No the point is you guys try and nitpick things to bash Favre about. The season is 16 games and now you fall back to he should not have bad games against bad teams like that. Guess what, QBs have bad games against good and bad teams. Keep spinning, sho.By the way, here are the NFL ranks of passing defense for those "bad" teams.Oakland 9thBuffalo 11thNew England #15San Fran #25Spin...spin....spin, sho!!!

Umm...Im not spinning.Oakland has a nice pass D...but they are a bad team.All we hear about are wins and losses right? They lost. Wait, does that only work when it supports your argument?And im not saying I agree totally with the guy.But its one thing to have a bad game against teams like Pitt or Baltimore or Tampa.And another to have bad games against teams that just are not that good.You call it spin all you want. I realize the game is 16 games long...I did not make the original post...but pointed out he had more than just 2 bad games...and those 2 against San Fran and Oakland were not that good and those teams were bad.

 

[parasaurolophus]

John Clayton...

"To me, it's a different situation than Aaron Rodgers. Even though Rodgers slipped to the 24th spot in the 2005 draft, he was the top quarterback prospect. Teams should learn from others. Rodgers had a good season, but the Packers went from 13-3 to 5-9 without Favre. Do the Eagles want to make the same mistake by getting rid of McNabb? They shouldn't do it."

ETA here is the linky...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3775407

 

[sho nuff]

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.

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.

Drew Bledsoe.

One example...a good one for sure. But it does not happen all that often is what I am getting at.And the Bills needed much more than just a QB to really be a threat to the Pats.They were a 3-13 team before him.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?

Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.

How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?

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.

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.

No the point is you guys try and nitpick things to bash Favre about. The season is 16 games and now you fall back to he should not have bad games against bad teams like that. Guess what, QBs have bad games against good and bad teams. Keep spinning, sho.By the way, here are the NFL ranks of passing defense for those "bad" teams.Oakland 9thBuffalo 11thNew England #15San Fran #25Spin...spin....spin, sho!!!

Umm...Im not spinning.Oakland has a nice pass D...but they are a bad team.All we hear about are wins and losses right? They lost. Wait, does that only work when it supports your argument?And im not saying I agree totally with the guy.But its one thing to have a bad game against teams like Pitt or Baltimore or Tampa.And another to have bad games against teams that just are not that good.You call it spin all you want. I realize the game is 16 games long...I did not make the original post...but pointed out he had more than just 2 bad games...and those 2 against San Fran and Oakland were not that good and those teams were bad.

Spin.....spin and more spin to try and do what you can to knock Favre. Again.....read slowly....Quarterbacks are going to have bad games each season. Some of those bad games may be against bad teams. It happens in the NFL so quit trying to use that as an excuse to knock Favre. You admit you are not saying you totally agree with the guy yet you still want to try and use it as another way to knock Favre.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

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.

Drew Bledsoe.

One example...a good one for sure. But it does not happen all that often is what I am getting at.And the Bills needed much more than just a QB to really be a threat to the Pats.They were a 3-13 team before him.

You are right, it is rare. The big difference there is that Bledsoe was far inferior to Brady and BB knew it. The smart play was to send a QB to a division rival that he knew wouldnt be a huge risk to him.TT was worried about losing to Favre for his own job. The Jets were ideal for TT because he wouldnt have to play them. This is one of the reasons why BB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TT

 

[sho nuff]

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.

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.

Drew Bledsoe.

One example...a good one for sure. But it does not happen all that often is what I am getting at.And the Bills needed much more than just a QB to really be a threat to the Pats.They were a 3-13 team before him.

You are right, it is rare. The big difference there is that Bledsoe was far inferior to Brady and BB knew it. The smart play was to send a QB to a division rival that he knew wouldnt be a huge risk to him.TT was worried about losing to Favre for his own job. The Jets were ideal for TT because he wouldnt have to play them. This is one of the reasons why BB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TT

Exactly, Bledsoe was not a thread. Favre on the Vikings was for sure.Oh...and was it all BB or Pioli too?The Jets were ideal because they are not in conference or division. And they were offering more.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

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.

Drew Bledsoe.

One example...a good one for sure. But it does not happen all that often is what I am getting at.And the Bills needed much more than just a QB to really be a threat to the Pats.They were a 3-13 team before him.

You are right, it is rare. The big difference there is that Bledsoe was far inferior to Brady and BB knew it. The smart play was to send a QB to a division rival that he knew wouldnt be a huge risk to him.TT was worried about losing to Favre for his own job. The Jets were ideal for TT because he wouldnt have to play them. This is one of the reasons why BB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TT

Exactly, Bledsoe was not a thread. Favre on the Vikings was for sure.Oh...and was it all BB or Pioli too?The Jets were ideal because they are not in conference or division. And they were offering more.

i am not a pat/bill fan so i dont know exactly how it played out, but I tend to think that the true evaluation of Bledsoe came from BB.

 

[parasaurolophus]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/36210959.html

 

[Phurfur]

How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?

It is looking better every week!

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.

As a Packer fan I remember all the great things Favre accomplished in GB but I also remember this:http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=3281535

After beating the San Francisco 49ers in the 1997 NFC Championship Game, Favre won just three of his last 10 playoff games. Eli Manning had more postseason wins in a 29-day span this past season than Favre had in his last decade with the Green Bay Packers.

Yes, Favre won a Super Bowl -- 11 years ago! But as his career arc spiraled downward, the blind adulation only got worse.

Favre's passer rating in his last 12 postseason games was a pedestrian 77.8. In his last five wild-card games, he went 2-3 with more interceptions (nine) than touchdown passes (seven). In his last three divisional playoff games, he went 1-2 with seven TDs and seven interceptions. That's a 3-5 record with 14 touchdown passes and 16 picks.

In two of his last four postseason appearances, Favre threw two of the most unthinkable playoff interceptions in NFL history, both in overtime -- to Brian Dawkins of the Philadelphia Eagles in 2003 and to Corey Webster of the New York Giants in January. In fact, Favre is the only quarterback in NFL history to throw overtime interceptions in two playoff games. In his last nine playoff games, Favre threw 18 interceptions.

In the first 81 years of the Green Bay franchise, the most hallowed in all of pro football, the Packers were 13-0 at home in the postseason. But since 2002, the Packers have gone 2-3 in playoff games at Lambeau Field, with Favre losing to three not-quite Hall of Fame quarterbacks: Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper and Manning.

It was time for a change in GB and I like the A. Rodgers as Favre's replacement.

 

[Stinger Ray]

If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?

Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.

How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?

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.

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.

No the point is you guys try and nitpick things to bash Favre about. The season is 16 games and now you fall back to he should not have bad games against bad teams like that. Guess what, QBs have bad games against good and bad teams. Keep spinning, sho.By the way, here are the NFL ranks of passing defense for those "bad" teams.Oakland 9thBuffalo 11thNew England #15San Fran #25Spin...spin....spin, sho!!!

Umm...Im not spinning.Oakland has a nice pass D...but they are a bad team.All we hear about are wins and losses right? They lost. Wait, does that only work when it supports your argument?And im not saying I agree totally with the guy.But its one thing to have a bad game against teams like Pitt or Baltimore or Tampa.And another to have bad games against teams that just are not that good.You call it spin all you want. I realize the game is 16 games long...I did not make the original post...but pointed out he had more than just 2 bad games...and those 2 against San Fran and Oakland were not that good and those teams were bad.

Spin.....spin and more spin to try and do what you can to knock Favre. Again.....read slowly....Quarterbacks are going to have bad games each season. Some of those bad games may be against bad teams. It happens in the NFL so quit trying to use that as an excuse to knock Favre. You admit you are not saying you totally agree with the guy yet you still want to try and use it as another way to knock Favre.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

John Clayton...

"To me, it's a different situation than Aaron Rodgers. Even though Rodgers slipped to the 24th spot in the 2005 draft, he was the top quarterback prospect. Teams should learn from others. Rodgers had a good season, but the Packers went from 13-3 to 5-9 without Favre. Do the Eagles want to make the same mistake by getting rid of McNabb? They shouldn't do it."

ETA here is the linky...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3775407

If the Eagles knew without a doubt that Kolb could score 25+ total TDs next year I bet they'd trade McNabb ASAP.

 

[zDragon]

If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?

Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.

How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?

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.

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.

So it was only Favre that had a bad game against those teams? Thought this was a team sport.Are there certain NFL teams your allowed to have a bad day against? How do you schedule the Teams your having a bad day against? Really didn't realize that was possible.

 

[Sabertooth]

Lots of noise in here as people have designated themselves the advocate for the Packers or taken the position that they screwed up. The truth is, going to Rodgers was the right move at the time. There was no way to know what Brett would do this season, they'd already given Rodgers their word (maybe that means something to Ted Thompson), and they were simply ready to move on. You have to remember as well that in Favre's last 2 cold weather games, he just didn't look at all like he wanted to be there. He may have thought he changed his mind when his bones thawed in July, but in all reality, he didn't appear to want to be out there in the cold in January.

So the move was the right move at the time. Now, people saying that the Jets are only better because of Brett need to look at what Pennington is doing down in Miami. He's having a great season. People that think that the only reason the Packers have lost a game this season is that Brett is gone are kidding themselves. The defense is so bad that it really doesn't make a lot of difference how the team player in the first 50 minutes of a game, almost everybody has been able to gash this defense when the game is on the line. I mean, for the love of Pete, Dennis Northcutt looked like Steve Smith last week. Dennis freaking Northcutt.

The moving of Woodson has been disastrous. The losses of Cullen Jenkins, Corey Williams, KGB, Nick Barnett, combined with the quickly diminishing skills of Chad Clifton and the injury and diminishing skills of Mark Tauscher have sent this team into a tailspin.

Rodgers has been solid statistically but has made some really questionable decisions late in games that have cost the team. The term milquetoast comes to mind when describing his play. No real identity on offense. I give him a pass mainly because he's playing under impossible circumstances with a divided fan base where half support him and half despise him even though he hasn't ever done anything but be a professional.

This team is in some dire straits right now. Thompson has made some big mistake (Harrell for instance) and hasn't draft any impact players outside of Rodgers and Jennings. Hawk is a semi-bust, Collins was good for about 8 games but he isn't really a pro bowl caliber player. Outside of them, he's drafted a lot of depth players. And by depth I mean players that sould be in the 23-53 man range instead of the 1-22 man range of a roster.

The decision to go with Rodgers appears to be the right decision because no matter how good Favre does this season, he's old. This team wasn't as good as the 13-3 record indicated last season. They are probably close to an 8-8 or 9-7 team talent wise right now. I highly doubt that they'd have made a serious run at the Super Bowl while being gauged for 180 yards per game by teams like New York and Carolina in the playoffs. So they got Rodgers the experience this season while they continue to cultivate their young talent.

Is Thompson good enough to fill in the gaps at safety and in the trenches? I don't know. He really hasn't show the ability to find talent in either of those spots.

 

[sho nuff]

If Favre is having such a great year, how can one explain the Raiders and 49ers games?

Here is a hint....all QBs have bad games during the course of a season.

How about the first Patriots game? And the Bills game last week? How many hints will we be getting?

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.

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.

So it was only Favre that had a bad game against those teams? Thought this was a team sport.Are there certain NFL teams your allowed to have a bad day against? How do you schedule the Teams your having a bad day against? Really didn't realize that was possible.

Where did I claim only he had a bad game?Why must you try to answer each post with questions? Can you not just add your opinion?See, I can ask alot of questions too.You are again just spinning out of control in order to argue...just stop now, its getting quite old.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

they were absolutely as good as their record indicated last season

but that was last season

 

[zDragon]

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.

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.

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)

The Vikings could be giving up a lot more if they gave up a 1st round. I understand the logic behind not trading in the division but to me it's a little flawed in this case.1. You have what you think is an over the hill QB who will not play more than 2 years.2. You state your building for the future3. Your ok with having problems this year and accepting some loses.To me that screams get the most ANY team will give for him. Limiting it to a certain conference etc just limits what you can get in return. Not a good choice in my opinion looking at the circumstances. Your building for the future take a desperate team ANYWHERE to the cleaners for everything they'll give. Who cares if he beats you this year or next after all your building for the FUTURE not this year.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Who cares? Um, everyone?

 

[sho nuff]

I love the why not trade him to the Vikings thing.

Honestly people...TT has been getting hammered for even making that move.

What do you think would happen had Brett gone there and they win it all?

You think the image of #4 wearing purple and hosting the Lombardi is worth a 1st rounder? I would end up poking my eyes out with my cheesehead beer coozie.

TT would get hammered...not just fired by possibly lynched.

 

[zDragon]

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.

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.

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)

Helping a division rival with the one piece they really need is not always helping your team.

It's been stated over and over in these threads that the team is building for the future. If that's truly the case then what do you care if your division rival is better this year? I mean after all Favre is NOT going to play more than 1-2 years. Then your rival has to rebuild with out the #1 they gave up to you.

 

[sho nuff]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

 

[zDragon]

[quote name='sho nuff' post='9704370' date='Dec 18 2008, 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)

Helping a division rival with the one piece they really need is not always helping your team.

Going to the Vikings is seen as treason by some. Besides they can get a 1st round pick if the Jets make the Super Bowl. A 2nd if they make the playoffs.

The Vikings denied any interest.

By going to the Jets Packer fans can root for him without hurting ourselves.

They denied but that doesn't mean they were not interested. Why would you limit it at all and not get the best deal you could? Why would TT care if Favre committed treason by going to the Vikes?

Doesn't make sense if you truly building for the future.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Continuing to have 1st round picks will probably keep the Vikings worse anyway.

 

[bcr8f]

It's been stated over and over in these threads that the team is building for the future. If that's truly the case then what do you care if your division rival is better this year? I mean after all Favre is NOT going to play more than 1-2 years. Then your rival has to rebuild with out the #1 they gave up to you.

They traded him to New York to avoid fan pain. Why is that so hard to understand? Go look at Wall Street companies and who they have under contract. See if they allow them to leave and go to the competition where they can do great damage to the parent company.

 

[zDragon]

It's been stated over and over in these threads that the team is building for the future. If that's truly the case then what do you care if your division rival is better this year? I mean after all Favre is NOT going to play more than 1-2 years. Then your rival has to rebuild with out the #1 they gave up to you.

They traded him to New York to avoid fan pain. Why is that so hard to understand? Go look at Wall Street companies and who they have under contract. See if they allow them to leave and go to the competition where they can do great damage to the parent company.

1. Your first point doesn't make sense if they are building for the future. Everything I've seen the fans support building for the future so optimize what your getting versus being scared of what will happen.2. Is wall street a good example? If so it would be like trading the 80 year old that will not be able to effectively function in the environment after 1 or 2 years. So if the company owning his rights lets a rival hire him and gives compensation of an upcoming wall street stud. So the company has to live through a 1-2 year down turn then will have a 15 year run of profits with the new younger stud they picked up. Just don't see the sense in it if you building for the future.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I suggest making the exact same post even more times.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

 

[sho nuff]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

Yes...a third.Now we are speculating on a pick that was not even close to ever being offered?In building for the future (which, trading him was not just about the future...I believe they thought they could still win the division...giving the Vikings Favre, then hurts your chances).The job of the GM is also not to let one of your biggest rivals have pretty much their biggest need.And had they made the move towards the Vikings...you never know if the Tampering issue goes away as smoothly.As part of that, they may have vetoed the trade on those grounds or not allowed it or something.But again...thats all speculation.In the end...if he trades him to Minny and Minny wins it all...TT knows he is gone.

 

[zDragon]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

Yes...a third.Now we are speculating on a pick that was not even close to ever being offered?In building for the future (which, trading him was not just about the future...I believe they thought they could still win the division...giving the Vikings Favre, then hurts your chances).The job of the GM is also not to let one of your biggest rivals have pretty much their biggest need.And had they made the move towards the Vikings...you never know if the Tampering issue goes away as smoothly.As part of that, they may have vetoed the trade on those grounds or not allowed it or something.But again...thats all speculation.In the end...if he trades him to Minny and Minny wins it all...TT knows he is gone.

Seems selfish to punish the fans and the organization because you fear the old guy your getting rid of. You build for the future and get the most regardless where he goes to. If everyone was on board with the move as stated it wouldn't matter it the Vikings won or not TT would still be in GB.

 

[sho nuff]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

Yes...a third.Now we are speculating on a pick that was not even close to ever being offered?In building for the future (which, trading him was not just about the future...I believe they thought they could still win the division...giving the Vikings Favre, then hurts your chances).The job of the GM is also not to let one of your biggest rivals have pretty much their biggest need.And had they made the move towards the Vikings...you never know if the Tampering issue goes away as smoothly.As part of that, they may have vetoed the trade on those grounds or not allowed it or something.But again...thats all speculation.In the end...if he trades him to Minny and Minny wins it all...TT knows he is gone.

Seems selfish to punish the fans and the organization because you fear the old guy your getting rid of. You build for the future and get the most regardless where he goes to. If everyone was on board with the move as stated it wouldn't matter it the Vikings won or not TT would still be in GB.

Punish the fans? You think seeing Favre lift the Lombardi would be fine with the fans because you got a 1st for it? Are you kidding?I think some of you are very naive...or just fishing here and cannot actually believe what you are saying...its beyond amazing that anyone would even consider trading him to the Vikings a good move beyond a Hershal Walker type deal.Which they were not going to get.

 

[sho nuff]

And here is why I believe this.

Do you think most GB fans will be ok if NY wins the SB?

You think most fans will be supportive of THompson if that happens?

You think there will not be even bigger cries of "Brett could have done that for the Packers"?

Or do you think people would think...thats ok, we got a first. Good job Ted.

Then imagine how much worse it gets when you replace the Jets with the Vikings in that story.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I think we need an updated sho post count.

 

[sho nuff]

I think we need an updated sho post count.

Why does it matter?Can we get an updated count of you doing anything more than posting about me?At least I post about the topic.Not the usual...how many posts does sho have...classic backpeddle or Some very solid contributions to the board there.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I think we need an updated sho post count.

Why does it matter?Can we get an updated count of you doing anything more than posting about me?At least I post about the topic.Not the usual...how many posts does sho have...classic backpeddle or Some very solid contributions to the board there.

Wow...thanks! That was more than I was expecting when I threw that one out.

 

[zDragon]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

Yes...a third.Now we are speculating on a pick that was not even close to ever being offered?In building for the future (which, trading him was not just about the future...I believe they thought they could still win the division...giving the Vikings Favre, then hurts your chances).The job of the GM is also not to let one of your biggest rivals have pretty much their biggest need.And had they made the move towards the Vikings...you never know if the Tampering issue goes away as smoothly.As part of that, they may have vetoed the trade on those grounds or not allowed it or something.But again...thats all speculation.In the end...if he trades him to Minny and Minny wins it all...TT knows he is gone.

Seems selfish to punish the fans and the organization because you fear the old guy your getting rid of. You build for the future and get the most regardless where he goes to. If everyone was on board with the move as stated it wouldn't matter it the Vikings won or not TT would still be in GB.

Punish the fans? You think seeing Favre lift the Lombardi would be fine with the fans because you got a 1st for it? Are you kidding?I think some of you are very naive...or just fishing here and cannot actually believe what you are saying...its beyond amazing that anyone would even consider trading him to the Vikings a good move beyond a Hershal Walker type deal.Which they were not going to get.

I'd prefer my team build for the future. To bad the packers are scared of the old man they traded. To give up even the chance of getting an impact starter for his career versus the thought of Favre holding a trophy for one year is funny. Even funnier is that if the above is the case then the Pack more than likely traded him to a bad team to avoid this or any negative comparison between the team they traded him to and the Packers (that fear thing again). It's side splitting to think that 4 win team is now a play-off hopeful and possible division winner while the Pack sink this year and the comparisons are made anyway.

 

[Sabertooth]

they were absolutely as good as their record indicated last seasonbut that was last season

Every team gets the record they deserve. This is true.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

As a Cowboys fan, I guess you (zDragon) are familiar with what it feels like to see your biggest rival pimp slap you on their way to a championship.

 

[griz145389]

And here is why I believe this.Do you think most GB fans will be ok if NY wins the SB? You think most fans will be supportive of THompson if that happens?You think there will not be even bigger cries of "Brett could have done that for the Packers"?Or do you think people would think...thats ok, we got a first. Good job Ted.Then imagine how much worse it gets when you replace the Jets with the Vikings in that story.

I think the people that say that are already upset with Thompson, and the people that wouldn't are the people who thought it was a good idea to trade Favre in the first place.

 

[sho nuff]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

Yes...a third.Now we are speculating on a pick that was not even close to ever being offered?In building for the future (which, trading him was not just about the future...I believe they thought they could still win the division...giving the Vikings Favre, then hurts your chances).The job of the GM is also not to let one of your biggest rivals have pretty much their biggest need.And had they made the move towards the Vikings...you never know if the Tampering issue goes away as smoothly.As part of that, they may have vetoed the trade on those grounds or not allowed it or something.But again...thats all speculation.In the end...if he trades him to Minny and Minny wins it all...TT knows he is gone.

Seems selfish to punish the fans and the organization because you fear the old guy your getting rid of. You build for the future and get the most regardless where he goes to. If everyone was on board with the move as stated it wouldn't matter it the Vikings won or not TT would still be in GB.

Punish the fans? You think seeing Favre lift the Lombardi would be fine with the fans because you got a 1st for it? Are you kidding?I think some of you are very naive...or just fishing here and cannot actually believe what you are saying...its beyond amazing that anyone would even consider trading him to the Vikings a good move beyond a Hershal Walker type deal.Which they were not going to get.

I'd prefer my team build for the future. To bad the packers are scared of the old man they traded. To give up even the chance of getting an impact starter for his career versus the thought of Favre holding a trophy for one year is funny. Even funnier is that if the above is the case then the Pack more than likely traded him to a bad team to avoid this or any negative comparison between the team they traded him to and the Packers (that fear thing again). It's side splitting to think that 4 win team is now a play-off hopeful and possible division winner while the Pack sink this year and the comparisons are made anyway.

Its side splitting that a cowboys fan cares this much about the green bay packers and does not seem to understand what the image of #4 in a Vikings uniform and especially if they win the bowl and he hoists the lombardi wearing that and what that would do and how quickly TT would be run out of the state of Wisconsin.

 

[sho nuff]

And here is why I believe this.Do you think most GB fans will be ok if NY wins the SB? You think most fans will be supportive of THompson if that happens?You think there will not be even bigger cries of "Brett could have done that for the Packers"?Or do you think people would think...thats ok, we got a first. Good job Ted.Then imagine how much worse it gets when you replace the Jets with the Vikings in that story.

I think the people that say that are already upset with Thompson, and the people that wouldn't are the people who thought it was a good idea to trade Favre in the first place.

I agreed with the trade of him.I would have been first in line to bash TT had they traded him to Minny.

 

[zDragon]

As a Cowboys fan, I guess you (zDragon) are familiar with what it feels like to see your biggest rival pimp slap you on their way to a championship.

I'd trade a year of my rival winning (not that I'd like it) if it could help us dominate them for the next 5-10.

 

[zDragon]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

Yes...a third.Now we are speculating on a pick that was not even close to ever being offered?In building for the future (which, trading him was not just about the future...I believe they thought they could still win the division...giving the Vikings Favre, then hurts your chances).The job of the GM is also not to let one of your biggest rivals have pretty much their biggest need.And had they made the move towards the Vikings...you never know if the Tampering issue goes away as smoothly.As part of that, they may have vetoed the trade on those grounds or not allowed it or something.But again...thats all speculation.In the end...if he trades him to Minny and Minny wins it all...TT knows he is gone.

Seems selfish to punish the fans and the organization because you fear the old guy your getting rid of. You build for the future and get the most regardless where he goes to. If everyone was on board with the move as stated it wouldn't matter it the Vikings won or not TT would still be in GB.

Punish the fans? You think seeing Favre lift the Lombardi would be fine with the fans because you got a 1st for it? Are you kidding?I think some of you are very naive...or just fishing here and cannot actually believe what you are saying...its beyond amazing that anyone would even consider trading him to the Vikings a good move beyond a Hershal Walker type deal.Which they were not going to get.

I'd prefer my team build for the future. To bad the packers are scared of the old man they traded. To give up even the chance of getting an impact starter for his career versus the thought of Favre holding a trophy for one year is funny. Even funnier is that if the above is the case then the Pack more than likely traded him to a bad team to avoid this or any negative comparison between the team they traded him to and the Packers (that fear thing again). It's side splitting to think that 4 win team is now a play-off hopeful and possible division winner while the Pack sink this year and the comparisons are made anyway.

Its side splitting that a cowboys fan cares this much about the green bay packers and does not seem to understand what the image of #4 in a Vikings uniform and especially if they win the bowl and he hoists the lombardi wearing that and what that would do and how quickly TT would be run out of the state of Wisconsin.

Who said I cared about the Green Bay Packers? I find these threads interesting because of how one side comes up with any spin possible to tarnish there own great QB. Seems you pack fans really are scared of the old guy. Probably should have kept as bad as that image makes you feel. Otherwise your team is just not smart not getting the most for him regardless of where he went.

 

[sho nuff]

As a Cowboys fan, I guess you (zDragon) are familiar with what it feels like to see your biggest rival pimp slap you on their way to a championship.

I'd trade a year of my rival winning (not that I'd like it) if it could help us dominate them for the next 5-10.

I would not trade watching Brett Favre hoist the Lombardi trophy wearing purple and gold for a possible 1st round pick that could fizzle out.Because them winning it all, means the team ended up with the last pick in the 1st round.Its not like they are getting a top 10 pick with it.

 

[sho nuff]

Seriously, I have disagreed with alot in these threads...but I cannot comprehend why anyone would even think it would have been a good idea to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings.

So, if the Jets do not make the playoffs - what do the Packers get? A third? (I honestly don't know)If the Vikings would have traded for him - they would have given up a 1st and probably another pick (in the 2nd - 4th range). Which one is better for the Packers? Yes, I understand you don't want to help a rival, but if your plan is to build for the future, you are getting huge help for the future and hurting the Vikings for the future.The job of the GM is to make the team better, not win popularity contests.I just don't agree with the premise of not trading within the division. I understand that Packer fans would have been upset - but I'm just saying they would have been wrong.The Packers could have really made a killing on the Vikings after the tampering issue came out. The Vikings would have had to give a ton - and they would have because you know that they tampered with him, even though the league cleared them.

Yes...a third.Now we are speculating on a pick that was not even close to ever being offered?In building for the future (which, trading him was not just about the future...I believe they thought they could still win the division...giving the Vikings Favre, then hurts your chances).The job of the GM is also not to let one of your biggest rivals have pretty much their biggest need.And had they made the move towards the Vikings...you never know if the Tampering issue goes away as smoothly.As part of that, they may have vetoed the trade on those grounds or not allowed it or something.But again...thats all speculation.In the end...if he trades him to Minny and Minny wins it all...TT knows he is gone.

Seems selfish to punish the fans and the organization because you fear the old guy your getting rid of. You build for the future and get the most regardless where he goes to. If everyone was on board with the move as stated it wouldn't matter it the Vikings won or not TT would still be in GB.

Punish the fans? You think seeing Favre lift the Lombardi would be fine with the fans because you got a 1st for it? Are you kidding?I think some of you are very naive...or just fishing here and cannot actually believe what you are saying...its beyond amazing that anyone would even consider trading him to the Vikings a good move beyond a Hershal Walker type deal.Which they were not going to get.

I'd prefer my team build for the future. To bad the packers are scared of the old man they traded. To give up even the chance of getting an impact starter for his career versus the thought of Favre holding a trophy for one year is funny. Even funnier is that if the above is the case then the Pack more than likely traded him to a bad team to avoid this or any negative comparison between the team they traded him to and the Packers (that fear thing again). It's side splitting to think that 4 win team is now a play-off hopeful and possible division winner while the Pack sink this year and the comparisons are made anyway.

Its side splitting that a cowboys fan cares this much about the green bay packers and does not seem to understand what the image of #4 in a Vikings uniform and especially if they win the bowl and he hoists the lombardi wearing that and what that would do and how quickly TT would be run out of the state of Wisconsin.

Who said I cared about the Green Bay Packers? I find these threads interesting because of how one side comes up with any spin possible to tarnish there own great QB. Seems you pack fans really are scared of the old guy. Probably should have kept as bad as that image makes you feel. Otherwise your team is just not smart not getting the most for him regardless of where he went.

Umm...the spin is coming out of you all who think I am trying to tarnish the guy.The spin continues to come mostly out of you, phase, ookie, and beaver.Saying I don't think he is enough to make this team into a contender is not the same as tarnishing him.Scared of him?Nope, I respect him and know he could help the Vikings big time. I guess thats because I diminish his effect and tarnish his image right?

 

[ScottyFargo]

The REAL reason someone might ask "Why not trade him to Minny for a guaranteed 1st?" is because the Packers had the chance at using Favre this year, but they traded him away and the reasons for trading him are murky. Did they trade him because they thought Rodgers would be better / as good? Did they trade him because they thought Favre wouldn't be able to achieve a season like he had last year? Did they trade him out of spite for his will-I-or-won't-I yearly retirement game?

If the reason is they traded him because he won't be as good, then the answer is clear, get rid of him for the most payoff, IE a 1st to anybody, including a division rival. But because they tried they're hardest to get rid of him to a non-NFC team we can safely assume that the Packers knew he was still a viable QB that could take a team poised to make an attempt to the playoffs / SB far.

Well wait a second, doesn't that sound a lot like the pre-season Packers? They had a solid year last year, if Favre is so dangerous a QB, why don't you want him on your team? Clearly this shows that the Packers as an organization let personal feelings get in the way of their executive decision, but were atleast smart enough to not make it more difficult for them to get into the playoffs by keeping a weapon out of the hands of their opponents. This is the same as any of us do when we pick up a waiver wire player with a nice matchup even if we don't plan on starting them, just so our opponents can't cover an area of weakness.

But the Packer team did not live up to the standard that last year's team set, and now it's easy to say, with hindsight, that the Packers made the right decision because this team couldn't have possibly made it into the Playoffs anyway, or even if they did, they would have been 1 and done.

I say that's horsepucky, there's no way to tell how the season might have played out differently with Favre over Rodgers. In his stead, Rodgers' play has not been "bad", but the fact that he hasn't managed to come up with any miracle victories on his own where Favre has managed a 30% rate of success in such situations tells you that the Packers could have won more games this year with Favre. How many, the impact, is difficult to gauge, but the fact that the team fell apart does not make the reasons that the Packers gave up on Favre legitimate.

Rodgers will no doubt find success in his career and will be a viable QB for the Packers for some time, that's not at issue. That wasn't going to change with or without Favre, his play was going to be whatever his skill level led it to be. The Packers true intent in dealing Favre is obvious based on how scared they were of having to face him on any team in the regular season, be it the Tampa Bay Bucs or the Vikings, who they also spitefully lashed out against with trumped up interference charges that were not found to be true. The only way the Packers could have gotten away with trading Favre for the best pick would have been to chance him failing or succeeding for a division rival, and the odds that he would impact the Vikings or Bears positively was too great to deal him there.

 

[zDragon]

As a Cowboys fan, I guess you (zDragon) are familiar with what it feels like to see your biggest rival pimp slap you on their way to a championship.

I'd trade a year of my rival winning (not that I'd like it) if it could help us dominate them for the next 5-10.

I would not trade watching Brett Favre hoist the Lombardi trophy wearing purple and gold for a possible 1st round pick that could fizzle out.Because them winning it all, means the team ended up with the last pick in the 1st round.Its not like they are getting a top 10 pick with it.

Once again your afraid of the old man. If it's that big a worry for the Pack then why trade him at all? After all the team was 13-3 last year and one game away right? He threw the game losing pick right? So from what i"ve seen posted the chances of him hoisting the trophy in Min was very slim.Now you have him as a Jet possibly taking a terrible team into the play-offs and super bowl win hoisting the trophy. The whole time almost everyone is looking on laughing and smiling as the Pack losses mount and the Jets win go up. I can't imagine what everyone will think if the Lions actually pull off an upset and Brett and the Jets somehow win the division.

 

[parasaurolophus]

As a Cowboys fan, I guess you (zDragon) are familiar with what it feels like to see your biggest rival pimp slap you on their way to a championship.

I'd trade a year of my rival winning (not that I'd like it) if it could help us dominate them for the next 5-10.

I would not trade watching Brett Favre hoist the Lombardi trophy wearing purple and gold for a possible 1st round pick that could fizzle out.Because them winning it all, means the team ended up with the last pick in the 1st round.

Its not like they are getting a top 10 pick with it.

Once again your afraid of the old man. If it's that big a worry for the Pack then why trade him at all? After all the team was 13-3 last year and one game away right? He threw the game losing pick right? So from what i"ve seen posted the chances of him hoisting the trophy in Min was very slim.Now you have him as a Jet possibly taking a terrible team into the play-offs and super bowl win hoisting the trophy.

The whole time almost everyone is looking on laughing and smiling as the Pack losses mount and the Jets win go up. I can't imagine what everyone will think if the Lions actually pull off an upset and Brett and the Jets somehow win the division.

If this happens, TT is gone.