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

[Tau837]

The results don't really matter. You can be playing poker, go all in with 2-7 off suit, and win. Was it a good move? You won didn't you?Clearly TT felt like he had a special QB in Rodgers. Doesn't change the fact it was a mistake. And nothing that happens this year will change that. When you look at risk analysis, problem solving, team management, cap management, running an organization. TT blew it on a number of issues. To be 4-5, and Rodgers having played fairly well, has been mostly luck. He setup this situation to be an epic fail, and he's lucky Rodgers has saved his ### or he would have been fired.Back to the simple solution. Bring Faver back. Sign Rodgers to an extension (would have been cheaper in August, and TT felt strongly about him so there was not a lot of risk involved). They keep a SB caliber team together, avoid the media circus, avoid any second guessing. Keep the present intact, keep the future intact, and make a run at it. Remember this had to be done in June. TT basically cut a probowl QB, handed the job to a QB who's never started in the NFL, and had 2 backups who've never taken snaps in the NFL. With a team loaded with talent, a couple plays away from the SB, 13-3 last year, ready to make a run. It was a move that didn't need to be made. He created it, mostly out of ego. He could have had his cake and eaten it too. But he was sick of Favre's diva attitude, and shipped him out of town. I firmly believe he took it personal, hated the fact he just wasted a 2nd on a QB and now Favre wanted back, and said enough is enough. But it's not about TT, it's about the Packers.As for how he was lucky, the amount of pressure he put Rodgers under. Ditching a HOF QB, Packer legend, SB winner. We've seen talented QBs crack under much less pressure. Everything Rodgers did was under a microscope. He didn't do Rodgers any favors. Has the stress of the training camp, the media attention, the constantly criticism hurt the team? Who knows. The playoffs seem in jeopardy. You have to really question why TT forced the issue.I've yet to hear one reason why welcoming back Favre, and extending Rodgers would have been a bad move. Cap was not an issue. They had 30 mil of cap room. Money was no issue in this case. When you break it down in June, it was a bad move. What happens in November really has no impact. When you break it down, analyze the risks, the rewards, keeping BOTH QBs is clearly what should have been done. After the season Favre had, no one with a clue would have said Rodgers was a better NFL QB back in June. Turns out he's pretty good. But back in June, with 0 NFL starts, you would have been hoping, guessing, praying he was. Favre was much more of a known factor. There was so much inherent risk, imagine if Rodgers would have been out a few weeks with that shoulder injury, the season would have been over. No experienced backup? None? TT blew this so many ways; you just can't justify his moves.Props to Rodgers. I’m not sure a QB has been under more pressure then he has this year. He was put in an impossible situation, and in my view it should have never gotten to this point.

 

[Tau837]

I thought the general consensus was that the Packers had a much better team then the Jets. Ted Thompson is a genius with picking all these great players in the draft, just look at all that great depth the Packers have. Seems to be working out pretty well for the team. The Packers will be mired in mediocrity until Ted leaves. He is unwilling to make the push to turn a good team into a great one.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Good to see you know nothing about the NFL.

Are you upset about something? Try to not make this about me.

0/10

Not really sure what the problem is that you have. Favre is an interception machine. He's got 12 picks in 9 games. The Vikings probably would have put 42 points up on the Packers today becuase of Favre's gifts.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Good to see you know nothing about the NFL.

Are you upset about something? Try to not make this about me.

0/10

Not really sure what the problem is that you have. Favre is an interception machine. He's got 12 picks in 9 games. The Vikings probably would have put 42 points up on the Packers today becuase of Favre's gifts.

0/10

 

[phthalatemagic]

Good to see you know nothing about the NFL.

Are you upset about something? Try to not make this about me.

0/10

Not really sure what the problem is that you have. Favre is an interception machine. He's got 12 picks in 9 games. The Vikings probably would have put 42 points up on the Packers today becuase of Favre's gifts.

0/10

No hard feelings buddy

 

[sho nuff]

biased...are 12 ints biased?4 returned for tds7 fumbles 2 lost.

sho nuff might be crazy, but he's 100% right here. You just can't get around the fact that Favre hurts his team with so many turnovers and spotted points. Green Bay wouldn't have even been in the position for that FG at the end of the game if Favre were playing.

So it's safe to say that the QB that went 13-3 with the Packers last year, named to the Pro Bowl and finished 2nd in the MVP voiting wouldn't have possibly helped the Packers today not to mention Favre won 4 of the last 5 games they played in the Metrodome. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

So...its safe to say that the defense that went 13-3 last year for the Packers, and held AP to fewer yards in two games than he had in one today...would not have possibly helped the Packers today?See how that sounds?Again...unless Brett is going to start playing LB or blocking for himself...I don't think he would have made much of a difference today...and could have made it worse with the way he has played this season.

 

[hauser42]

biased...are 12 ints biased?4 returned for tds7 fumbles 2 lost.

sho nuff might be crazy, but he's 100% right here. You just can't get around the fact that Favre hurts his team with so many turnovers and spotted points. Green Bay wouldn't have even been in the position for that FG at the end of the game if Favre were playing.

So it's safe to say that the QB that went 13-3 with the Packers last year, named to the Pro Bowl and finished 2nd in the MVP voiting wouldn't have possibly helped the Packers today not to mention Favre won 4 of the last 5 games they played in the Metrodome. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

You know what would be even better? Instead just saying 13-3, pro bowl, 2nd mvp, etc just preface whatever your actual statement there with Brett Favre's entire career! It would be awesome!

Truth hurts, son.

I just don't think that stuff matters as much as how Favre is playing this year.

His team is 6-3 and the Packers are 4-5.

This is the dumbest part to the arguement. You do realize since the Jets had their bye week they have played some of the worst teams in the NFL. Chiefs, Bengals, Raiders,and Rams. They did beat the Bills, but also lost to the Raiders. Until today they had not dominated any of these teams. Packers playing that schedule would likely have won 4 games alsoPrince Favre would have likely thrown a pick in under 5 minutes because he wants to always make the big play and not take what the team gives him.

 

[Aaronstory]

With Favre I'd say 4-5. The QB position isn't the problem here, but I'll let you guys fight it out like it is.

 

[sho nuff]

The Packers would have won today with Favre as the QB.

Oh yeah? Prove it.

I think he has a good comment.1. Favre was 4-1 in his last 5 games in the Dome.2. The Vikings clearly had a different game plan today to go after Rodgers. Something they wouldn't do with Favre as the QB.3. Favre is much better with quicker reads and his release is much quicker than Rodgers. Rodgers holds the ball too long and Troy Aikman spoke about that a lot today.4. McCarthy wasn't as conservative with his playing with Favre at the helm.5. Very unlikely that Favre gets nailed for two safeties today.6. Favre wouldn't have missed a wide open Nelson early in the game or some of the passes Rodgers missed in the second half.

Why would FAvre not have missed a WR? Did he never miss an open guy?How do any of you know that he would not have taken the safety...perhaps he would have got the ball off...perhaps it would have ended up in the hands of a guy wearing purple.We just don't know.

 

[sho nuff]

The Packers would have won today with Favre as the QB.

Oh yeah? Prove it.

I think he has a good comment.1. Favre was 4-1 in his last 5 games in the Dome.

2. The Vikings clearly had a different game plan today to go after Rodgers. Something they wouldn't do with Favre as the QB.

3. Favre is much better with quicker reads and his release is much quicker than Rodgers. Rodgers holds the ball too long and Troy Aikman spoke about that a lot today.

4. McCarthy wasn't as conservative with his playing with Favre at the helm.

5. Very unlikely that Favre gets nailed for two safeties today.

6. Favre wouldn't have missed a wide open Nelson early in the game or some of the passes Rodgers missed in the second half.

Are you kidding me? They wouldn't have gone after an immobile QB like Favre?Wow, just wow. Where did all the intelligence on this board go to?

Wow...just wow.....If you watched the Packers with Favre as the QB you would know teams were reluctant to blitz against him because more than likely he would burn them. This is a fact.

I agree. Favre actually would have succeeded against the blitz in those 3 and 4 wide out sets, with a lot of those short dump off passes to the slant, taking advantage of Minn weak secondary, where Rodgers failed to do so today. Also, given how "successful" Grant was today against the run, it's pretty clear that Favre completing just a few more of those slants would have made the Vikings play back more to give Grant more room, just like he had all second half last year. The run game would have improved, they could have gone to it more and had a more balanced attack instead of an offense that consisted of Rodgers running away from Allen all game.

I love this...as if Rodgers was just going deep every time and holding the ball every time.He had very little time to do any of that.

Grant already had plenty of room and was running well...so not sure what your point was there. They had the run...if they had kept using it (just like last week).

Favre may make those plays...but again, the way he is playing this year, its just as likely he would have thrown a costly int as well.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

biased...are 12 ints biased?4 returned for tds7 fumbles 2 lost.

sho nuff might be crazy, but he's 100% right here. You just can't get around the fact that Favre hurts his team with so many turnovers and spotted points. Green Bay wouldn't have even been in the position for that FG at the end of the game if Favre were playing.

So it's safe to say that the QB that went 13-3 with the Packers last year, named to the Pro Bowl and finished 2nd in the MVP voiting wouldn't have possibly helped the Packers today not to mention Favre won 4 of the last 5 games they played in the Metrodome. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

Again...unless Brett is going to start playing LB or blocking for himself...I don't think he would have made much of a difference today...and could have made it worse with the way he has played this season.

Of course you don't. Nothing would ever convince you that Favre could do something good. It is actually funny that you think the Packers record would be worse with Favre as the QB.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The Packers would have won today with Favre as the QB.

Oh yeah? Prove it.

I think he has a good comment.1. Favre was 4-1 in his last 5 games in the Dome.2. The Vikings clearly had a different game plan today to go after Rodgers. Something they wouldn't do with Favre as the QB.3. Favre is much better with quicker reads and his release is much quicker than Rodgers. Rodgers holds the ball too long and Troy Aikman spoke about that a lot today.4. McCarthy wasn't as conservative with his playing with Favre at the helm.5. Very unlikely that Favre gets nailed for two safeties today.6. Favre wouldn't have missed a wide open Nelson early in the game or some of the passes Rodgers missed in the second half.

Why would FAvre not have missed a WR? Did he never miss an open guy?How do any of you know that he would not have taken the safety...perhaps he would have got the ball off...perhaps it would have ended up in the hands of a guy wearing purple.We just don't know.

We don't know yet you are conviced the Packers would have a worse record with Favre as the QB. You are a complete nutjob.As Joe B. has stated often with sho.... I'm done with you.

 

[sho nuff]

How would farve fair at tackling ADP? Can he kick a 52 yarder? Give it up, you're wrong on this one. Playing Rodgers make GB the only team in the conference with a good Qb - and this looks like it will be true for the next decade.

Ridiculous. Favre simply would have been more successful, kept the offense on the field longer, (What was it, 2 to 1 vikes on possession? Amazing.) And he would have gotten the offense closer to get that last minute field goal that he was famous for setting up his whole career. You know, the one that made Longwell the Packers all time leading scorer. Please, the defense of Rodgers complete mediocrity is getting to be too much. It all trickles down from the QB.

How do you know he would have just been more successful?You can't. You just don't know that.He would have gotten them closer with the 2 runs?He was famous for throwing a ton of INTs as well...why don't you think he would have thrown any of those?Rodgers was not good today...nobody is defending that overall...we are disagreeing that Favre would have automatically just been on fire today.And to just say Rodgers complete mediocrity...if you are talking about how he has played all year, you are obviously clueless.

 

[sho nuff]

biased...are 12 ints biased?4 returned for tds7 fumbles 2 lost.

sho nuff might be crazy, but he's 100% right here. You just can't get around the fact that Favre hurts his team with so many turnovers and spotted points. Green Bay wouldn't have even been in the position for that FG at the end of the game if Favre were playing.

So it's safe to say that the QB that went 13-3 with the Packers last year, named to the Pro Bowl and finished 2nd in the MVP voiting wouldn't have possibly helped the Packers today not to mention Favre won 4 of the last 5 games they played in the Metrodome. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

Again...unless Brett is going to start playing LB or blocking for himself...I don't think he would have made much of a difference today...and could have made it worse with the way he has played this season.

Of course you don't. Nothing would ever convince you that Favre could do something good. It is actually funny that you think the Packers record would be worse with Favre as the QB.

Nothing could convince me he could do something good?Of course he could...but similarly...some of you fail to recognize he could also do something very bad.And I said...with Favre the way he is playing now....Favre the way he played last year I agree would have this team in a better spot.But he is not playing like he did last year. Neither is the Packer defense.

 

[sho nuff]

The Packers would have won today with Favre as the QB.

Oh yeah? Prove it.

I think he has a good comment.1. Favre was 4-1 in his last 5 games in the Dome.2. The Vikings clearly had a different game plan today to go after Rodgers. Something they wouldn't do with Favre as the QB.3. Favre is much better with quicker reads and his release is much quicker than Rodgers. Rodgers holds the ball too long and Troy Aikman spoke about that a lot today.4. McCarthy wasn't as conservative with his playing with Favre at the helm.5. Very unlikely that Favre gets nailed for two safeties today.6. Favre wouldn't have missed a wide open Nelson early in the game or some of the passes Rodgers missed in the second half.

Why would FAvre not have missed a WR? Did he never miss an open guy?How do any of you know that he would not have taken the safety...perhaps he would have got the ball off...perhaps it would have ended up in the hands of a guy wearing purple.We just don't know.

We don't know yet you are conviced the Packers would have a worse record with Favre as the QB. You are a complete nutjob.As Joe B. has stated often with sho.... I'm done with you.

The nutjob is the few of you who continue to parse my sentence with what I said about Favre.And why must you try hiding behind Joe B. What does he have to do with your inability to read a full sentence of mine?Are you going to ignore the multiple other posters who have agreed with me?Basically you have you, phase, and a Vikings fan agreeing with you...Great company.

 

[sho nuff]

How would farve fair at tackling ADP? Can he kick a 52 yarder? Give it up, you're wrong on this one. Playing Rodgers make GB the only team in the conference with a good Qb - and this looks like it will be true for the next decade.

1. It is spelled Favre.2. Did you watch the game? The Packers had 184 net yards on offense. How can anyone state for a fact that Favre wouldn't have helped the offense today?

Did you watch the game?Adrian Peterson ran for 192 yards.Did you watch the turnstile that was the packer Oline?

 

[sho nuff]

biased...are 12 ints biased?4 returned for tds7 fumbles 2 lost.

sho nuff might be crazy, but he's 100% right here. You just can't get around the fact that Favre hurts his team with so many turnovers and spotted points. Green Bay wouldn't have even been in the position for that FG at the end of the game if Favre were playing.

So it's safe to say that the QB that went 13-3 with the Packers last year, named to the Pro Bowl and finished 2nd in the MVP voiting wouldn't have possibly helped the Packers today not to mention Favre won 4 of the last 5 games they played in the Metrodome. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

You know what would be even better? Instead just saying 13-3, pro bowl, 2nd mvp, etc just preface whatever your actual statement there with Brett Favre's entire career! It would be awesome!

Truth hurts, son.

I just don't think that stuff matters as much as how Favre is playing this year.

His team is 6-3 and the Packers are 4-5.

Which ignores several other factors...something you seem to be good at.

 

[sho nuff]

The results don't really matter. You can be playing poker, go all in with 2-7 off suit, and win. Was it a good move? You won didn't you?Clearly TT felt like he had a special QB in Rodgers. Doesn't change the fact it was a mistake. And nothing that happens this year will change that. When you look at risk analysis, problem solving, team management, cap management, running an organization. TT blew it on a number of issues. To be 4-5, and Rodgers having played fairly well, has been mostly luck. He setup this situation to be an epic fail, and he's lucky Rodgers has saved his ### or he would have been fired.Back to the simple solution. Bring Faver back. Sign Rodgers to an extension (would have been cheaper in August, and TT felt strongly about him so there was not a lot of risk involved). They keep a SB caliber team together, avoid the media circus, avoid any second guessing. Keep the present intact, keep the future intact, and make a run at it. Remember this had to be done in June. TT basically cut a probowl QB, handed the job to a QB who's never started in the NFL, and had 2 backups who've never taken snaps in the NFL. With a team loaded with talent, a couple plays away from the SB, 13-3 last year, ready to make a run. It was a move that didn't need to be made. He created it, mostly out of ego. He could have had his cake and eaten it too. But he was sick of Favre's diva attitude, and shipped him out of town. I firmly believe he took it personal, hated the fact he just wasted a 2nd on a QB and now Favre wanted back, and said enough is enough. But it's not about TT, it's about the Packers.As for how he was lucky, the amount of pressure he put Rodgers under. Ditching a HOF QB, Packer legend, SB winner. We've seen talented QBs crack under much less pressure. Everything Rodgers did was under a microscope. He didn't do Rodgers any favors. Has the stress of the training camp, the media attention, the constantly criticism hurt the team? Who knows. The playoffs seem in jeopardy. You have to really question why TT forced the issue.I've yet to hear one reason why welcoming back Favre, and extending Rodgers would have been a bad move. Cap was not an issue. They had 30 mil of cap room. Money was no issue in this case. When you break it down in June, it was a bad move. What happens in November really has no impact. When you break it down, analyze the risks, the rewards, keeping BOTH QBs is clearly what should have been done. After the season Favre had, no one with a clue would have said Rodgers was a better NFL QB back in June. Turns out he's pretty good. But back in June, with 0 NFL starts, you would have been hoping, guessing, praying he was. Favre was much more of a known factor. There was so much inherent risk, imagine if Rodgers would have been out a few weeks with that shoulder injury, the season would have been over. No experienced backup? None? TT blew this so many ways; you just can't justify his moves.Props to Rodgers. I’m not sure a QB has been under more pressure then he has this year. He was put in an impossible situation, and in my view it should have never gotten to this point.

You have heard the reason, you just don't agree with it.Which is fine.The reason is Favre was not committed until so late the team had moved on.At that point, if they bring Favre back...does Rodgers sign the extension anyway...or does he say forget it.Do they lose one of the other 2 QBs?Then you cut back reps for Rodgers, Flynn, and Brohm. You set back the development of the successor for one more year.All for a longshot of a SB win. If they did not win it all, bringing him back would be a mistake.Yes...you most certainly can justify his moves.

 

[sho nuff]

biased...are 12 ints biased?4 returned for tds7 fumbles 2 lost.

sho nuff might be crazy, but he's 100% right here. You just can't get around the fact that Favre hurts his team with so many turnovers and spotted points. Green Bay wouldn't have even been in the position for that FG at the end of the game if Favre were playing.

So it's safe to say that the QB that went 13-3 with the Packers last year, named to the Pro Bowl and finished 2nd in the MVP voiting wouldn't have possibly helped the Packers today not to mention Favre won 4 of the last 5 games they played in the Metrodome. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

You know what would be even better? Instead just saying 13-3, pro bowl, 2nd mvp, etc just preface whatever your actual statement there with Brett Favre's entire career! It would be awesome!

Truth hurts, son.

I just don't think that stuff matters as much as how Favre is playing this year.

His team is 6-3 and the Packers are 4-5.

You are aware that the NY Jets have 50 something players on the team, right? I stopped my obtuse act, you can stop yours.

Yes I am. Are you aware the Packers won 13 games last with Favre with the same players and the Jets won 4 with a different QB.

Apparently you are not aware that its not really the same players on either team.

 

[sho nuff]

I thought the general consensus was that the Packers had a much better team then the Jets. Ted Thompson is a genius with picking all these great players in the draft, just look at all that great depth the Packers have. Seems to be working out pretty well for the team. The Packers will be mired in mediocrity until Ted leaves. He is unwilling to make the push to turn a good team into a great one.

I disagree...they were not mired in mediocrity last year.Yes...he makes some good moves.But everyone loves the sign sign sign mentality of some other GMs...what does it get them. Ask Al Davis and Dan Snyder.I think they will be just fine while Ted is around. He has proven he will make the moves when he sees a guy he needs and wants.This season...what was the real savior to this team? Favre? Not the way he is playing this year.

 

[ScottyFargo]

How do you know he would have just been more successful?

You can't. You just don't know that.

He would have gotten them closer with the 2 runs?

He was famous for throwing a ton of INTs as well...why don't you think he would have thrown any of those?

Rodgers was not good today...nobody is defending that overall...we are disagreeing that Favre would have automatically just been on fire today.

And to just say Rodgers complete mediocrity...if you are talking about how he has played all year, you are obviously clueless.

Because the most recent data we have from Favre playing with these same players was last year, where he didn't make those kinds of costly mistakes against the Vikings and even blew them out to the tune of 30 points in November. He has INTIMATE knowledge of the Packer offense and Viking defense...he has had extreme success against them over the last several seasons...that's how I can say that he would have been more successful than Rodgers was both this week and week 1. Favre playing for the Packers team he's lived and breathed for a decade and a half is a COMPLETELY different animal than Favre playing for the Jets for THREE MONTHS. Give me a break.

You have heard the reason, you just don't agree with it.

Which is fine.

The reason is Favre was not committed until so late the team had moved on.

At that point, if they bring Favre back...does Rodgers sign the extension anyway...or does he say forget it.

Do they lose one of the other 2 QBs?

Then you cut back reps for Rodgers, Flynn, and Brohm. You set back the development of the successor for one more year.

All for a longshot of a SB win. If they did not win it all, bringing him back would be a mistake.

Yes...you most certainly can justify his moves.

Hmm let's see... how much more development does Rodgers need? He's already been stewing for three seasons, what's one more in reality? Should the Packers have gotten rid of Favre before last year so Rodgers could have worked these bugs out of his system already? If they had gotten rid of him last year, they wouldn't have had their "longshot" at the SB in the NFC championship game (Five game swing in regular season record, that was a pretty long shot to call before last season started!) , just like they won't this year without him either.

 

[sho nuff]

How do you know he would have just been more successful?

You can't. You just don't know that.

He would have gotten them closer with the 2 runs?

He was famous for throwing a ton of INTs as well...why don't you think he would have thrown any of those?

Rodgers was not good today...nobody is defending that overall...we are disagreeing that Favre would have automatically just been on fire today.

And to just say Rodgers complete mediocrity...if you are talking about how he has played all year, you are obviously clueless.

Because the most recent data we have from Favre playing with these same players was last year, where he didn't make those kinds of costly mistakes against the Vikings and even blew them out to the tune of 30 points in November. He has INTIMATE knowledge of the Packer offense and Viking defense...he has had extreme success against them over the last several seasons...that's how I can say that he would have been more successful than Rodgers was both this week and week 1. Favre playing for the Packers team he's lived and breathed for a decade and a half is a COMPLETELY different animal than Favre playing for the Jets for THREE MONTHS. Give me a break.

You have heard the reason, you just don't agree with it.

Which is fine.

The reason is Favre was not committed until so late the team had moved on.

At that point, if they bring Favre back...does Rodgers sign the extension anyway...or does he say forget it.

Do they lose one of the other 2 QBs?

Then you cut back reps for Rodgers, Flynn, and Brohm. You set back the development of the successor for one more year.

All for a longshot of a SB win. If they did not win it all, bringing him back would be a mistake.

Yes...you most certainly can justify his moves.

Hmm let's see... how much more development does Rodgers need? He's already been stewing for three seasons, what's one more in reality? Should the Packers have gotten rid of Favre before last year so Rodgers could have worked these bugs out of his system already? If they had gotten rid of him last year, they wouldn't have had their "longshot" at the SB in the NFC championship game (Five game swing in regular season record, that was a pretty long shot to call before last season started!) , just like they won't this year without him either.

Favre is not playing like he did last year.He did not do the offseason workout like he did last year.

He was not committed to the film study that he did last year.

Last November now means something...why did this defense not stop AP then? This might be the worst argument anyone has made in this thread so far.

As for Rodgers...do you not think it helps getting more reps? Actually getting game action?

So the team should have just extended him, only knowing what he did against Dallas? And hope he takes it and stays?

While the rest of the team does not get reps?

One more is one more year of his career cut off.

And they would not have gotten rid of Favre this year...had he not retired...and confirmed that retirement several times this offseason.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Favre is not playing like he did last year.He did not do the offseason workout like he did last year.He was not committed to the film study that he did last year.Last November now means something...why did this defense not stop AP then? This might be the worst argument anyone has made in this thread so far.As for Rodgers...do you not think it helps getting more reps? Actually getting game action?So the team should have just extended him, only knowing what he did against Dallas? And hope he takes it and stays?While the rest of the team does not get reps?One more is one more year of his career cut off.And they would not have gotten rid of Favre this year...had he not retired...and confirmed that retirement several times this offseason.

Of course he isn't! He's not playing on the same team! I see you've been talking with Greta Van Susteran and have intimate detailed knowledge of what film study Favre's been catching between his midday naps.Ah...the defense didn't stop AD this year because 1. Childress didn't pull him at the half after only 12 carries and a hundred yards like his FIRST meeting with THAT DEFENSE last year and 2. The Packers apparently didn't take out a bounty worth clubbing him in the knee with a helmet. What Favre DID do last year was pick apart the Vikings defense like other Vets have done this year...but Rodgers struggled, averaging about 160 yards per game against one of the worst Passing D's in the league. Favre's struggles on the Jets? No kidding, he didn't want to play there...doesn't have the YAC monster Jennings, steady hands of Driver or the sweet carress of Thompson's manly hands to keep him calm now...and still he's helped the team enough to have a winning record thru nine games.

 

[parasaurolophus]

this defense couldnt stop AP last year either.

the defense is the only reason that the pack was in this game today. I actually shouted to my brother during the game I hope minny passes again so the Packers have a chance at scoring.

This offense was terrible today and that ALWAYS has an effect on your defense. TOP was terrible. The coaching was terrible. Without those picks today is a blowout.

There is no excuse at all that this offense should not be better than last year. Why isnt it? The only change that can account for this is either Rodgers or play calling. Everything else should be better, but its not. Why? Did Grant just get worse? Did the line just get worse? Did the receivers just get worse?

 

[teamroc]

Favre is not playing like he did last year.He did not do the offseason workout like he did last year.He was not committed to the film study that he did last year.Last November now means something...why did this defense not stop AP then? This might be the worst argument anyone has made in this thread so far.As for Rodgers...do you not think it helps getting more reps? Actually getting game action?So the team should have just extended him, only knowing what he did against Dallas? And hope he takes it and stays?While the rest of the team does not get reps?One more is one more year of his career cut off.And they would not have gotten rid of Favre this year...had he not retired...and confirmed that retirement several times this offseason.

Uh, they told a probowl, HOF QB to get lost. But that's not enough to extend him? Huh? So wait a second. Getting rid of the starting QB, playing a high level, makese perfect sense when the backup has 0 starts. But extending him would have been foolish? *Lol* Great logic there.If TT was ready to hand over the team, he could have extended him. There were no cap issues and it would have SAVED them money.Favre unreitred, BEFORE CAMP. Hello. Reps. *lol* Yes Rodgers would have been pushed back a year, while they trying to WIN A SB.Sorry, the best argument to not keeping both was "Rodgers losing reps". Oh dear. Welcome Favre back, extend Rodgers, make a run at the SB. End of story.

 

[teamroc]

The results don't really matter. You can be playing poker, go all in with 2-7 off suit, and win. Was it a good move? You won didn't you?Clearly TT felt like he had a special QB in Rodgers. Doesn't change the fact it was a mistake. And nothing that happens this year will change that. When you look at risk analysis, problem solving, team management, cap management, running an organization. TT blew it on a number of issues. To be 4-5, and Rodgers having played fairly well, has been mostly luck. He setup this situation to be an epic fail, and he's lucky Rodgers has saved his ### or he would have been fired.Back to the simple solution. Bring Faver back. Sign Rodgers to an extension (would have been cheaper in August, and TT felt strongly about him so there was not a lot of risk involved). They keep a SB caliber team together, avoid the media circus, avoid any second guessing. Keep the present intact, keep the future intact, and make a run at it. Remember this had to be done in June. TT basically cut a probowl QB, handed the job to a QB who's never started in the NFL, and had 2 backups who've never taken snaps in the NFL. With a team loaded with talent, a couple plays away from the SB, 13-3 last year, ready to make a run. It was a move that didn't need to be made. He created it, mostly out of ego. He could have had his cake and eaten it too. But he was sick of Favre's diva attitude, and shipped him out of town. I firmly believe he took it personal, hated the fact he just wasted a 2nd on a QB and now Favre wanted back, and said enough is enough. But it's not about TT, it's about the Packers.As for how he was lucky, the amount of pressure he put Rodgers under. Ditching a HOF QB, Packer legend, SB winner. We've seen talented QBs crack under much less pressure. Everything Rodgers did was under a microscope. He didn't do Rodgers any favors. Has the stress of the training camp, the media attention, the constantly criticism hurt the team? Who knows. The playoffs seem in jeopardy. You have to really question why TT forced the issue.I've yet to hear one reason why welcoming back Favre, and extending Rodgers would have been a bad move. Cap was not an issue. They had 30 mil of cap room. Money was no issue in this case. When you break it down in June, it was a bad move. What happens in November really has no impact. When you break it down, analyze the risks, the rewards, keeping BOTH QBs is clearly what should have been done. After the season Favre had, no one with a clue would have said Rodgers was a better NFL QB back in June. Turns out he's pretty good. But back in June, with 0 NFL starts, you would have been hoping, guessing, praying he was. Favre was much more of a known factor. There was so much inherent risk, imagine if Rodgers would have been out a few weeks with that shoulder injury, the season would have been over. No experienced backup? None? TT blew this so many ways; you just can't justify his moves.Props to Rodgers. I’m not sure a QB has been under more pressure then he has this year. He was put in an impossible situation, and in my view it should have never gotten to this point.

You have heard the reason, you just don't agree with it.Which is fine.The reason is Favre was not committed until so late the team had moved on.At that point, if they bring Favre back...does Rodgers sign the extension anyway...or does he say forget it.Do they lose one of the other 2 QBs?Then you cut back reps for Rodgers, Flynn, and Brohm. You set back the development of the successor for one more year.All for a longshot of a SB win. If they did not win it all, bringing him back would be a mistake.Yes...you most certainly can justify his moves.

Favre wanted back BEFORE CAMP. McFly?Longshot to win a SB? They were in the NFC Championship game. They almost WENT to the SB last year? The entire team was back. Longshot? Are you drunk? They were 13-3. One of the best teams in the NFC. Explain why he went into the season with 3 qbs, 0 starts, and the backups had 0 snaps in the NFL. Good plan? Are you kidding me? TT created a circus, and Rodgers had to bail him out huge. There was no need for this. Bring back both, Favre gave you the best shot back in June, it was the smart move. This was an ego move, that put Rodgers in a horrible position.And if Rodgers was good enough to dump Brett, he didn't need more reps. You pretty much got nothing.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I think teams are now beginning to notice tendencies of Rodgers from film study. We will see how he progressing thru the end of the season but it doesn't look good.

Exactly...teams are coming in with different game plans than they did when Favre was the QB. Also, Rodgers and McCarthy admitted his decision making was poor last week against the Titans including in the redzone. The Packers probably would have won that game too if Favre was the QB.

I love statements like this.That they just would have won had he been there.Give me a break...you can't just claim that.You have no clue if Favre would have chucked another one up last week or had one returned for a TD (as he has done often this year for the Jets).

I have a decent clue to know that Favre would have had better decision making in the red zone and wouldn't have had 4-5 terrible audible calls that Rodgers admitted having against the Titans.

Wow. Rodgers had a rough day against the Titans...one of the best D's in the league.Care to speculate on what caused Favre's 38 attempts for 197 yards and 47.8 passer rating against the Raiders in week 7?

 

[Challenge Everything]

re: Favre = 4-5

The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

re: Rodgers

He has performed better at times than I thought he would however he is a rookie in most sense of the term. A fair comparison would be to rewind and watch Favre's first 9 games with Green Bay. He showed great skill at times but also had to learn a lot as well. I will give Rodgers a pass this year for the circus that was going on with the Packers this off season but also because Rodgers is a young "rookie" learning new things. Next year the expectations will be much higher for him and the team.

re: Thompson

The poster was right before... Thompson thinks his way is the right way and has the ego to prove it. Fine, but 99/100 times when you have a Pro Bowl QB wanting to return vs. a "rookie" QB who never started a game... you take the veteran QB. Thompson threw Rodgers to the wolves and that was unfair to Rodgers. Again, this year is Rodgers learning curve that I believe most Packers fans have embraced. We, however, do not like this nor are willing to accept it because of what the team did last year. We want that again and we saw those results walk out of the door when Thompson made the "wrong" decision to not bring Favre back.

re: sho nuff

Do you know how to write in paragraph form or do you automatically hit the return key after every punctuation?

Your posts looks very amateurish with your writing style.

It may benefit your arguments if you write correctly.

And, you do more speculating than BGP in the FFA.

 

[JamesTheScot]

There is no excuse at all that this offense should not be better than last year. Why isnt it? The only change that can account for this is either Rodgers or play calling. Everything else should be better, but its not. Why? Did Grant just get worse? Did the line just get worse? Did the receivers just get worse?

Man, teams regress all the time. Just because you have the same pieces doesn't mean they will improve on their performance from last year. You hope they will, but they don't always do that. There are too many intangibles that determine how a team performs - team chemistry being one of them - to just assume that production will improve over time with the same parts.Any explanation for the Bengals? Are the Colts merely regressing because of Peyton's injury?

 

[encaitar]

I'm a Vikings fan so take this with a grain of salt, but I can't see how anyone could've watched that game and not thought that Favre would've given them a better chance to win that game. Honestly, for the past 4 years, everytime Favre dropped back against the Vikings I was worried. There was absolutely no worry today when Rodgers dropped back. I was almost hoping he would drop back because he held the ball for so damn long it was almost guaranteed to be a sack.

Now you can argue that Favre would've thrown a pick or two, but given how terrible GB's punter was I don't see how a deep pick would've been any worse than a sack for a 10 yard loss and then a punt. Plus, Favre always seemed to know when to throw that quick slant that only he and his receiver knew about that always seemed to kill the Vikes.

However, I feel that an even bigger absense in yesterday's game was Corey Williams. Green Bay's Dline got owned and they were missing his prescence in the middle. Bet Ted wishes he would've paid him now.

 

[JamesTheScot]

The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

OK, this has got to stop. You are stating as fact that teams laid off the line against Favre which helped Grant. Do you have any statistical data to prove that assertion or are you speculating?Also, when the running game was struggling, why would Rodgers have good games unless he was able to overcome what the DC, who knows he's the only threat on the field to gameplan against, is throwing at him?

Defensive coordinators use a fluid strategy within a game depending on the down, distance and what's been going on in the game up till now. You're crazy if you don't think NFL DC's make halftime adjustments to shut down a RB, even an unknown RB, when he's run rough shod over them in the first two quarters. This is even more true after a RB has put together a good string of games from earlier in the season. That's the fallacy of this type of generalization. Even a poor QB is going to face nickel or dime coverage in 3rd and long. Even a poor RB is going to face 8 in the box on what the DC believes will be running downs.

BTW, if you look at what Rodgers is on pace for this season and compare it to Favre's "renaissance" year in 2007, you're going to see some similarities. A first year starter vs. a HOF'er. It shouldn't even be close when you think about it...especially with how the GB running game has struggled.

I bet the Jets would trade Favre for Rodgers.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

OK, this has got to stop. You are stating as fact that teams laid off the line against Favre which helped Grant. Do you have any statistical data to prove that assertion or are you speculating?Also, when the running game was struggling, why would Rodgers have good games unless he was able to overcome what the DC, who knows he's the only threat on the field to gameplan against, is throwing at him.

You would like statistical data as to where the LB's stood during the Favre years? Sorry, you are asking the impossible here. I can tell you though, living in Green Bay for the last ~9 years that I heard many reporters, analysts, football guys in the area explain how teams played defense against Favre. If you are trying to claim that LB's stay in the same position when you are referencing Favre vs. Rodgers, I have nothing I can say that would change your mind. However, if you are willing to admit that LB's cheat up on the line for different QB's and cheat on the line given different RB's, then we can talk.

Favre constantly made throws to open WR's early in their patterns when he saw LB's cheating up on the line or would audible to the slants/hitches to get that quick 5 yard pass with a possible run after the catch. I have not seen Rodgers do this but again, I concede that this is Rodgers "rookie" season.

Ask anybody as far as LB's or DB's cheating up towards the line if on running downs or when the team shows running formations vs. certain RB's. They do do this. Teams do less of this cheating when there is a threat at the QB position which opens holes down the field in the 2nd and 3rd levels if the RB can get through the 1st level. Are you going to claim that the threat of Favre vs. the threat of Rodgers is the same? Meaning teams play or game plan for Roders near the same way they do/did for Favre given similar personnel in Green Bay? If that is your claim then I have no idea what your knowledge of football is.

Rodgers has had some good games this year. He is not fully healthy from the shoulder injury, he has admitted this. Also, as teams get tape on a guy they have more ideas of how to combat that player. Rodgers is/was an unknown in the beginning of the season. He only has a few games of tape for others to examine, however, tendencies do show up and thus DC's game plan for those tendencies.

I don't know how else to explain it since it appears you are not conceding some well known football facts.

 

[griz145389]

I thought the general consensus was that the Packers had a much better team then the Jets. Ted Thompson is a genius with picking all these great players in the draft, just look at all that great depth the Packers have. Seems to be working out pretty well for the team. The Packers will be mired in mediocrity until Ted leaves. He is unwilling to make the push to turn a good team into a great one.

I disagree...they were not mired in mediocrity last year.Yes...he makes some good moves.But everyone loves the sign sign sign mentality of some other GMs...what does it get them. Ask Al Davis and Dan Snyder.I think they will be just fine while Ted is around. He has proven he will make the moves when he sees a guy he needs and wants.This season...what was the real savior to this team? Favre? Not the way he is playing this year.

I am not suggesting that a gm should sign every big name free agent on the market, however picking up a few players here and there would not be a bad thing. Other than Charles Woodson, he has not made any large splashes in free agency. Why walk into a year 30 million below the cap? If you are always worried about building for the future, today will never come. The NFL is not about what might or might not happen 2 years from now in free agency, it is about making the right moves to make your team a superbowl contender. Being so tight with money that you would think Thompson has to pay these guys himself is not a good aspect of a general manager. He does pretty well at managing the draft, but his refusal to go after any players in free agency is why the Packers will not be a great team. When a team performs the way the Packers did the year before, and they have the type of cap room the Packers did in the offseason, you would expect them to seriously make a play for a top free agent or two. Instead our big signing was Brandon Chillar.

 

[sho nuff]

Favre is not playing like he did last year.He did not do the offseason workout like he did last year.He was not committed to the film study that he did last year.Last November now means something...why did this defense not stop AP then? This might be the worst argument anyone has made in this thread so far.As for Rodgers...do you not think it helps getting more reps? Actually getting game action?So the team should have just extended him, only knowing what he did against Dallas? And hope he takes it and stays?While the rest of the team does not get reps?One more is one more year of his career cut off.And they would not have gotten rid of Favre this year...had he not retired...and confirmed that retirement several times this offseason.

Of course he isn't! He's not playing on the same team! I see you've been talking with Greta Van Susteran and have intimate detailed knowledge of what film study Favre's been catching between his midday naps.Ah...the defense didn't stop AD this year because 1. Childress didn't pull him at the half after only 12 carries and a hundred yards like his FIRST meeting with THAT DEFENSE last year and 2. The Packers apparently didn't take out a bounty worth clubbing him in the knee with a helmet. What Favre DID do last year was pick apart the Vikings defense like other Vets have done this year...but Rodgers struggled, averaging about 160 yards per game against one of the worst Passing D's in the league. Favre's struggles on the Jets? No kidding, he didn't want to play there...doesn't have the YAC monster Jennings, steady hands of Driver or the sweet carress of Thompson's manly hands to keep him calm now...and still he's helped the team enough to have a winning record thru nine games.

Its not just the "team". Its his decisions. Its not like he has crap for wideouts like the year GB was trotting out Ferguson and not much else. His decisions are bad right now.I have knowledge of Favre telling the team several times he could not commit to coming back, I have knowledge that he would not commit to McCarthy to putting in the same time he did last year. I have knowledge that during the offseason prior to last season he had a guy down there working out big time with him and this year his working out amounted to throwing to high school kids and running stairs with Deanna.1. True...your coach is an idiot.2. A bounty to stop him, and the hit was on his thigh with a shoulder and was as clean as can be. And he was already doing little to nothing that game.Rodgers did not struggle in the first game of the year. He was not asked to do much, and did not need to. He was efficient and controlled the game from the start. He struggled yesterday for sure. No doubt about it. I guess Favre never struggled against the Vikings or anyone though right?

 

[sho nuff]

this defense couldnt stop AP last year either. the defense is the only reason that the pack was in this game today. I actually shouted to my brother during the game I hope minny passes again so the Packers have a chance at scoring.This offense was terrible today and that ALWAYS has an effect on your defense. TOP was terrible. The coaching was terrible. Without those picks today is a blowout. There is no excuse at all that this offense should not be better than last year. Why isnt it? The only change that can account for this is either Rodgers or play calling. Everything else should be better, but its not. Why? Did Grant just get worse? Did the line just get worse? Did the receivers just get worse?

Id say Gus was the reason...and the Packers secondary...but not the defense overall. Not with allowing AP to run for 192.And yes...the offense was bad...and TOP was bad...but they were not stopping Peterson from the get go.As for the offense. Look up front for some of the struggles, especially early on. Grant had nowhere to run and was hurt. Now that he is 100%, he is running much better. Though, getting fewer carries the last two games for some reason. Clifton and Tauscher have not been themselves and the problems on the inside (Daryn Colledge) are well documented.I think McCarthy is putting alot on the passing game and yesterday failed to adjust to see that they just were not protecting well enough to keep it up. They had problems with that even with Favre in there at times and would go to more max protect schemes. Im surprised they did not use more of that yesterday as quickly as Minny was getting through the line.And Rodgers. He was holding the ball more yesterday and looked less in control of the offense than in previous games. Even with some bad decisions last week, he looked in control running the show. I don't think he looked that way yesterday.

 

[bcr8f]

I am not suggesting that a gm should sign every big name free agent on the market, however picking up a few players here and there would not be a bad thing. Other than Charles Woodson, he has not made any large splashes in free agency.

He doesn't believe in free agency. I think he could at least work out a few young, not yet big name, players but he has been successful and I support him. Chillar's a good player. Get a few more young not yet star players Ted.But I have had a lot of head scratching moments too with ted. He is very hard to figure out. I thought giving up Chad Jackson to get more picks was a bad mov e but he drafted Jennings later in the same round.

 

[sho nuff]

Favre is not playing like he did last year.He did not do the offseason workout like he did last year.He was not committed to the film study that he did last year.Last November now means something...why did this defense not stop AP then? This might be the worst argument anyone has made in this thread so far.As for Rodgers...do you not think it helps getting more reps? Actually getting game action?So the team should have just extended him, only knowing what he did against Dallas? And hope he takes it and stays?While the rest of the team does not get reps?One more is one more year of his career cut off.And they would not have gotten rid of Favre this year...had he not retired...and confirmed that retirement several times this offseason.

Uh, they told a probowl, HOF QB to get lost. But that's not enough to extend him? Huh? So wait a second. Getting rid of the starting QB, playing a high level, makese perfect sense when the backup has 0 starts. But extending him would have been foolish? *Lol* Great logic there.If TT was ready to hand over the team, he could have extended him. There were no cap issues and it would have SAVED them money.Favre unreitred, BEFORE CAMP. Hello. Reps. *lol* Yes Rodgers would have been pushed back a year, while they trying to WIN A SB.Sorry, the best argument to not keeping both was "Rodgers losing reps". Oh dear. Welcome Favre back, extend Rodgers, make a run at the SB. End of story.

That probowl QB told them he was done. Told them several times he could not commit to the team. They gave the reigns to Rodgers...again, its speculation as to if he would not sign the extension, but you have to admit the possibility that he would get fed up with waiting and not sign the extension and play out his deal, and maybe not resign with the team after 2009.Extending a guy with 0 starts who may not want to extend because he is pissed would be a bit dicey yes. And that QB quit first. A fact some of you keep ignoring.Yes...Favre unretired...right as camp was coming around...after months of saying he could not commit to the team. After the team took the entire offseason to prepare for life without him. After he had done very little in ways of preparation for the season himself.Rodgers would be pushed back a year...as would the others.And again...if they don't win the SB...what would be the point. And this team...right now, with Favre, would not be winning the SB. Not unless he wants to strap up and play defense too. They give up 150 yards per game on the ground. Brett can air it out all he wants...that is not changing anytime soon with a change in QB.The problems on this team are not the QB. Its pretty simple for most to see.

 

[sho nuff]

The results don't really matter. You can be playing poker, go all in with 2-7 off suit, and win. Was it a good move? You won didn't you?Clearly TT felt like he had a special QB in Rodgers. Doesn't change the fact it was a mistake. And nothing that happens this year will change that. When you look at risk analysis, problem solving, team management, cap management, running an organization. TT blew it on a number of issues. To be 4-5, and Rodgers having played fairly well, has been mostly luck. He setup this situation to be an epic fail, and he's lucky Rodgers has saved his ### or he would have been fired.Back to the simple solution. Bring Faver back. Sign Rodgers to an extension (would have been cheaper in August, and TT felt strongly about him so there was not a lot of risk involved). They keep a SB caliber team together, avoid the media circus, avoid any second guessing. Keep the present intact, keep the future intact, and make a run at it. Remember this had to be done in June. TT basically cut a probowl QB, handed the job to a QB who's never started in the NFL, and had 2 backups who've never taken snaps in the NFL. With a team loaded with talent, a couple plays away from the SB, 13-3 last year, ready to make a run. It was a move that didn't need to be made. He created it, mostly out of ego. He could have had his cake and eaten it too. But he was sick of Favre's diva attitude, and shipped him out of town. I firmly believe he took it personal, hated the fact he just wasted a 2nd on a QB and now Favre wanted back, and said enough is enough. But it's not about TT, it's about the Packers.As for how he was lucky, the amount of pressure he put Rodgers under. Ditching a HOF QB, Packer legend, SB winner. We've seen talented QBs crack under much less pressure. Everything Rodgers did was under a microscope. He didn't do Rodgers any favors. Has the stress of the training camp, the media attention, the constantly criticism hurt the team? Who knows. The playoffs seem in jeopardy. You have to really question why TT forced the issue.I've yet to hear one reason why welcoming back Favre, and extending Rodgers would have been a bad move. Cap was not an issue. They had 30 mil of cap room. Money was no issue in this case. When you break it down in June, it was a bad move. What happens in November really has no impact. When you break it down, analyze the risks, the rewards, keeping BOTH QBs is clearly what should have been done. After the season Favre had, no one with a clue would have said Rodgers was a better NFL QB back in June. Turns out he's pretty good. But back in June, with 0 NFL starts, you would have been hoping, guessing, praying he was. Favre was much more of a known factor. There was so much inherent risk, imagine if Rodgers would have been out a few weeks with that shoulder injury, the season would have been over. No experienced backup? None? TT blew this so many ways; you just can't justify his moves.Props to Rodgers. I’m not sure a QB has been under more pressure then he has this year. He was put in an impossible situation, and in my view it should have never gotten to this point.

You have heard the reason, you just don't agree with it.Which is fine.The reason is Favre was not committed until so late the team had moved on.At that point, if they bring Favre back...does Rodgers sign the extension anyway...or does he say forget it.Do they lose one of the other 2 QBs?Then you cut back reps for Rodgers, Flynn, and Brohm. You set back the development of the successor for one more year.All for a longshot of a SB win. If they did not win it all, bringing him back would be a mistake.Yes...you most certainly can justify his moves.

Favre wanted back BEFORE CAMP. McFly?Longshot to win a SB? They were in the NFC Championship game. They almost WENT to the SB last year? The entire team was back. Longshot? Are you drunk? They were 13-3. One of the best teams in the NFC. Explain why he went into the season with 3 qbs, 0 starts, and the backups had 0 snaps in the NFL. Good plan? Are you kidding me? TT created a circus, and Rodgers had to bail him out huge. There was no need for this. Bring back both, Favre gave you the best shot back in June, it was the smart move. This was an ego move, that put Rodgers in a horrible position.And if Rodgers was good enough to dump Brett, he didn't need more reps. You pretty much got nothing.

Wow...Mcfly...nice one.He wanted back right before camp...after what? Yeah...you might want to look up all what happened before that.Yes...longshot to win the SB. You do realize last year was last year and not quite the same right?The entire team was not back...and they have lost several others this year...and several others have not been playing the same either.Im not drunk...Im realistic. As for the backups...I have criticized Thompson for not having a veteran backup on the team. Yup...it was an ego move...Favre's ego and Thompson's ego clashing.As I have said...there are reasons to it...you just don't agree with them. Fine.

 

[sho nuff]

re: Favre = 4-5The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

The quick slants are still there...but not as often.And Rodgers has shown the ability and the guts (I don't like that word, but best I could come up with) to go deep. A bit too often at times IMO.Favre was good at handling the blitz at times...and piss poor at other times.And people have to look at the line as far as some of the struggles with the run game too. I don't think anybody can honestly say Clifton is playing as well as he has in the past.

re: RodgersHe has performed better at times than I thought he would however he is a rookie in most sense of the term. A fair comparison would be to rewind and watch Favre's first 9 games with Green Bay. He showed great skill at times but also had to learn a lot as well. I will give Rodgers a pass this year for the circus that was going on with the Packers this off season but also because Rodgers is a young "rookie" learning new things. Next year the expectations will be much higher for him and the team.

True...a dropoff was expected. Anyone claiming otherwise is a bit out there. I said it from the start. But did not expect the dropoff at some other positions. LB for one. Clifton for the other.

re: ThompsonThe poster was right before... Thompson thinks his way is the right way and has the ego to prove it. Fine, but 99/100 times when you have a Pro Bowl QB wanting to return vs. a "rookie" QB who never started a game... you take the veteran QB. Thompson threw Rodgers to the wolves and that was unfair to Rodgers. Again, this year is Rodgers learning curve that I believe most Packers fans have embraced. We, however, do not like this nor are willing to accept it because of what the team did last year. We want that again and we saw those results walk out of the door when Thompson made the "wrong" decision to not bring Favre back.

If it was just vet QB wanting to return...fine...bit it was not just that simple. He was not just wanting to return without other things happening before that.Anyone expecting a repeat of last year needs to have their heads checked.

re: sho nuffDo you know how to write in paragraph form or do you automatically hit the return key after every punctuation?Your posts looks very amateurish with your writing style.It may benefit your arguments if you write correctly.And, you do more speculating than BGP in the FFA.

Wow, criticizing my posting style now? Thanks. Solid substance there.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm a Vikings fan so take this with a grain of salt, but I can't see how anyone could've watched that game and not thought that Favre would've given them a better chance to win that game. Honestly, for the past 4 years, everytime Favre dropped back against the Vikings I was worried. There was absolutely no worry today when Rodgers dropped back. I was almost hoping he would drop back because he held the ball for so damn long it was almost guaranteed to be a sack.Now you can argue that Favre would've thrown a pick or two, but given how terrible GB's punter was I don't see how a deep pick would've been any worse than a sack for a 10 yard loss and then a punt. Plus, Favre always seemed to know when to throw that quick slant that only he and his receiver knew about that always seemed to kill the Vikes.However, I feel that an even bigger absense in yesterday's game was Corey Williams. Green Bay's Dline got owned and they were missing his prescence in the middle. Bet Ted wishes he would've paid him now.

Peterson's bigger runs were to the outside.And Jolly has played pretty well all year long.I think they miss Jenkins much more than Corey Williams.Though, I have said TT messed up by not signing him during last season before even letting him get to the franchise tag and subsequent trade.

 

[sho nuff]

I thought the general consensus was that the Packers had a much better team then the Jets. Ted Thompson is a genius with picking all these great players in the draft, just look at all that great depth the Packers have. Seems to be working out pretty well for the team. The Packers will be mired in mediocrity until Ted leaves. He is unwilling to make the push to turn a good team into a great one.

I disagree...they were not mired in mediocrity last year.Yes...he makes some good moves.But everyone loves the sign sign sign mentality of some other GMs...what does it get them. Ask Al Davis and Dan Snyder.I think they will be just fine while Ted is around. He has proven he will make the moves when he sees a guy he needs and wants.This season...what was the real savior to this team? Favre? Not the way he is playing this year.

I am not suggesting that a gm should sign every big name free agent on the market, however picking up a few players here and there would not be a bad thing. Other than Charles Woodson, he has not made any large splashes in free agency. Why walk into a year 30 million below the cap? If you are always worried about building for the future, today will never come. The NFL is not about what might or might not happen 2 years from now in free agency, it is about making the right moves to make your team a superbowl contender. Being so tight with money that you would think Thompson has to pay these guys himself is not a good aspect of a general manager. He does pretty well at managing the draft, but his refusal to go after any players in free agency is why the Packers will not be a great team. When a team performs the way the Packers did the year before, and they have the type of cap room the Packers did in the offseason, you would expect them to seriously make a play for a top free agent or two. Instead our big signing was Brandon Chillar.

Why must teams make large splashes in FA. And have you seen the FA busts out there.And FA is not the only way to build a team. How many big time FAs have the Colts signed in the past 10 years? Yet they are one of the winningest teams out there.TT has signed Woodson (one I actually thought he overpaid for and am glad to be wrong about that), Pickett (who played very well last year and not so much this year), Chillar. Also he spends money keeping the core guys around. Like Driver, Kampman, Barnett, Harris. He traded to get Grant. He brought in some other guys that simply did not work out...ol Marquand Manuel who was seen as a decent safety a few years ago...but he sucks we later found out.As for Chillar...yes, he was the signing this year...and has been pretty solid...probably playing better than any other LB we have.Notice a GM who is a good friend of Ted Thompson, who has the same style is 9-0 right now in Tennessee. Tell me what big FA moves they have made.And what top free agents out there this year would have helped this Packer team?Were we going to sign and LT and kick Clifton to the curb? Any top LBs out there that would have replaced Hawk or Barnett? Should TT have anticipated Cullen Jenkins injury and signed a top DE?

 

[sho nuff]

I am not suggesting that a gm should sign every big name free agent on the market, however picking up a few players here and there would not be a bad thing. Other than Charles Woodson, he has not made any large splashes in free agency.

He doesn't believe in free agency. I think he could at least work out a few young, not yet big name, players but he has been successful and I support him. Chillar's a good player. Get a few more young not yet star players Ted.But I have had a lot of head scratching moments too with ted. He is very hard to figure out. I thought giving up Chad Jackson to get more picks was a bad mov e but he drafted Jennings later in the same round.

He is fine with free agency. He does not believe in going out and paying way over market value for a player who is just as likely to crap out as guys on the team.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

However, I feel that an even bigger absense in yesterday's game was Corey Williams. Green Bay's Dline got owned and they were missing his prescence in the middle. Bet Ted wishes he would've paid him now.

I was OK with this rant until right there. Corey Williams is an overrated, pass rush only DT. Period.The bigger question we should be asking is where the heck is Ryan Pickett? And let's not forget the defensive lineman playing at the highest level, Cullen Jenkins, is out for the season.Corey Williams remains not worth his contract. Rip on Thompson all you want, but Williams wouldn't be all that helpful for what's ailing Green Bay right now.

 

[sho nuff]

However, I feel that an even bigger absense in yesterday's game was Corey Williams. Green Bay's Dline got owned and they were missing his prescence in the middle. Bet Ted wishes he would've paid him now.

I was OK with this rant until right there. Corey Williams is an overrated, pass rush only DT. Period.The bigger question we should be asking is where the heck is Ryan Pickett? And let's not forget the defensive lineman playing at the highest level, Cullen Jenkins, is out for the season.Corey Williams remains not worth his contract. Rip on Thompson all you want, but Williams wouldn't be all that helpful for what's ailing Green Bay right now.

I agree to a point.I wish Thompson would have signed him during last season. His pass rush would help some, plus keep the other guys fresh.But as you said, where is Pickett. And very telling that the more damaging runs seem to be at the outside and towards the missing Cullen Jenkins...and not just up the gut where Williams was the reserve to Jolly last season.

 

[H.K.]

My heart goes out to the true Packer fans who have had to suffer due to TT's ego. They deserved better.

 

[Challenge Everything]

re: Favre = 4-5The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

The quick slants are still there...but not as often.And Rodgers has shown the ability and the guts (I don't like that word, but best I could come up with) to go deep. A bit too often at times IMO.Favre was good at handling the blitz at times...and piss poor at other times.And people have to look at the line as far as some of the struggles with the run game too. I don't think anybody can honestly say Clifton is playing as well as he has in the past.

No, the slants are not there. Rodgers has thrown, maybe, a handful this whole year. Those slants and hitches keep the LB's honest and not allowed to cheat the line thus helping out in the run game. Rodgers does not throw those either because he is not reading them, not able to do so, or whatever. Those quick tosses and gains keep the defense from cheating. Surely, even you can acknowledge this. Defenses do not have to prepare for those throws like they did with Favre. That helps the defense out greatly.How can you say "Favre was good at handling the blitz at times... and piss poor at other times" and keep a straight face on you? If we are going to compare Favre vs. Rodgers at picking up the blitz, Favre wins this argument every time. No way does Favre take two safeties yesterday, no way does Favre hold the ball as long as Rodgers does. Yesterday there was a play when Rodgers rolled out and Minnesota had a delayed blitz on and he took a sack. No way does that happen with Favre back there. If you cannot acknowledge these differences than you should not add anymore to the conversation, seriously.

 

[Challenge Everything]

re: ThompsonThe poster was right before... Thompson thinks his way is the right way and has the ego to prove it. Fine, but 99/100 times when you have a Pro Bowl QB wanting to return vs. a "rookie" QB who never started a game... you take the veteran QB. Thompson threw Rodgers to the wolves and that was unfair to Rodgers. Again, this year is Rodgers learning curve that I believe most Packers fans have embraced. We, however, do not like this nor are willing to accept it because of what the team did last year. We want that again and we saw those results walk out of the door when Thompson made the "wrong" decision to not bring Favre back.

If it was just vet QB wanting to return...fine...bit it was not just that simple. He was not just wanting to return without other things happening before that.Anyone expecting a repeat of last year needs to have their heads checked.

Where do you get your information from? ESPN, Fox News, CNNSi, where exactly? There have been many news stories, mostly, from the national media market who have reported many false things compared to what was reported in the local market. Believe who you will but I will believe the Green Bay media over the national media when it comes to anything Packers related. Keep shouting what you would like to believe but the louder you say something, does not make it true.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

re: Favre = 4-5The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

The quick slants are still there...but not as often.And Rodgers has shown the ability and the guts (I don't like that word, but best I could come up with) to go deep. A bit too often at times IMO.Favre was good at handling the blitz at times...and piss poor at other times.And people have to look at the line as far as some of the struggles with the run game too. I don't think anybody can honestly say Clifton is playing as well as he has in the past.

No, the slants are not there. Rodgers has thrown, maybe, a handful this whole year. Those slants and hitches keep the LB's honest and not allowed to cheat the line thus helping out in the run game. Rodgers does not throw those either because he is not reading them, not able to do so, or whatever. Those quick tosses and gains keep the defense from cheating. Surely, even you can acknowledge this. Defenses do not have to prepare for those throws like they did with Favre. That helps the defense out greatly.How can you say "Favre was good at handling the blitz at times... and piss poor at other times" and keep a straight face on you? If we are going to compare Favre vs. Rodgers at picking up the blitz, Favre wins this argument every time. No way does Favre take two safeties yesterday, no way does Favre hold the ball as long as Rodgers does. Yesterday there was a play when Rodgers rolled out and Minnesota had a delayed blitz on and he took a sack. No way does that happen with Favre back there. If you cannot acknowledge these differences than you should not add anymore to the conversation, seriously.

So what's the debate? A 16 year vet is better at recognizing the blitz and getting rid of the ball? No kidding? Look, Rodgers has played better than most of us thought. But it's year one starting for him.Anyone that wants to compare Rodgers right now to Favre right now is doing so completely unfairly.If you want to rip Thompson for the decision, knowing full well we'd see some growing pains. Have at it. That was his call. I still believe it's the correct one long term, and I'm willing to see a one-two year dip in record as Rodgers gets his feet wet.

 

[Challenge Everything]

re: Favre = 4-5The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

The quick slants are still there...but not as often.And Rodgers has shown the ability and the guts (I don't like that word, but best I could come up with) to go deep. A bit too often at times IMO.Favre was good at handling the blitz at times...and piss poor at other times.And people have to look at the line as far as some of the struggles with the run game too. I don't think anybody can honestly say Clifton is playing as well as he has in the past.

No, the slants are not there. Rodgers has thrown, maybe, a handful this whole year. Those slants and hitches keep the LB's honest and not allowed to cheat the line thus helping out in the run game. Rodgers does not throw those either because he is not reading them, not able to do so, or whatever. Those quick tosses and gains keep the defense from cheating. Surely, even you can acknowledge this. Defenses do not have to prepare for those throws like they did with Favre. That helps the defense out greatly.How can you say "Favre was good at handling the blitz at times... and piss poor at other times" and keep a straight face on you? If we are going to compare Favre vs. Rodgers at picking up the blitz, Favre wins this argument every time. No way does Favre take two safeties yesterday, no way does Favre hold the ball as long as Rodgers does. Yesterday there was a play when Rodgers rolled out and Minnesota had a delayed blitz on and he took a sack. No way does that happen with Favre back there. If you cannot acknowledge these differences than you should not add anymore to the conversation, seriously.

So what's the debate? A 16 year vet is better at recognizing the blitz and getting rid of the ball? No kidding? Look, Rodgers has played better than most of us thought. But it's year one starting for him.Anyone that wants to compare Rodgers right now to Favre right now is doing so completely unfairly.If you want to rip Thompson for the decision, knowing full well we'd see some growing pains. Have at it. That was his call. I still believe it's the correct one long term, and I'm willing to see a one-two year dip in record as Rodgers gets his feet wet.

Have you read my other postings in the thread? I clearly admit and accept that Favre is "better" at many things compared to Rodgers. I know this.Others have gone on record saying the Packers would be in the same position now even if Favre was behind the line. I do not think that would be true. If it is true, the people bashing Favre should come in here and give credit to the team for the 4-12 year instead of bashing Favre for those days. Again, all of your questions in the post have been answered and accepted by me in this thread.

 

[sho nuff]

re: Favre = 4-5The teams would have game planned differently for him. A reason why Grant was great last year is because he was an unknown with Favre behind him. Favre was known for picking teams apart and beating them. With that knowledge, teams laid off of the line because they did not want to get beat by Favre vs. Grant. Move ahead to this year and who is the unknown? Rodgers is. Tee up on the QB by sending blitz packages that a rookie may not pick out, hit him a few times early, and stop the run forcing the pass. Rodgers has had some good games while the injured back field labors. With all things equal, I think the Packers would be 6-3 with Favre right now. O-line issues do not hamper Favre as they do Rodgers. How many quick slants have we seen this year? That was Favre's go to play with Driver or Jennings. Rodgers does not hit those throws. The LB's lay off the line a little bit more with Favre and the threat of a deep ball and quick release. Rodgers does not have either of those tools yet... deep ball, quick release.

The quick slants are still there...but not as often.And Rodgers has shown the ability and the guts (I don't like that word, but best I could come up with) to go deep. A bit too often at times IMO.Favre was good at handling the blitz at times...and piss poor at other times.And people have to look at the line as far as some of the struggles with the run game too. I don't think anybody can honestly say Clifton is playing as well as he has in the past.

No, the slants are not there. Rodgers has thrown, maybe, a handful this whole year. Those slants and hitches keep the LB's honest and not allowed to cheat the line thus helping out in the run game. Rodgers does not throw those either because he is not reading them, not able to do so, or whatever. Those quick tosses and gains keep the defense from cheating. Surely, even you can acknowledge this. Defenses do not have to prepare for those throws like they did with Favre. That helps the defense out greatly.How can you say "Favre was good at handling the blitz at times... and piss poor at other times" and keep a straight face on you? If we are going to compare Favre vs. Rodgers at picking up the blitz, Favre wins this argument every time. No way does Favre take two safeties yesterday, no way does Favre hold the ball as long as Rodgers does. Yesterday there was a play when Rodgers rolled out and Minnesota had a delayed blitz on and he took a sack. No way does that happen with Favre back there. If you cannot acknowledge these differences than you should not add anymore to the conversation, seriously.

I think plenty of the slants are there if they throw them is what Im saying. Im aknowledging that they need to throw them more. They are there...he can throw them. But its funny how the argument is Favre beats you deep so the quick slants are there and the slants are what opens up the run game. The run game was there...it was last week too. I think McCarthy is getting away from it way too quickly. Some of that last week was on Rodgers apparently changing a few plays at the line though.How can I say that about Favre? He leads the NFL in INTs for his career. Thats how. Remember the blitz in the Philly playoff game? Where did that ball go? How about the pressure last year coming at him against the Giants? Good read...bad throw to the inside. Yes, he could burn teams that blizted...but he also gifted them quite a few.No way he takes 2 safeties? Maybe...though again, you don't know if he would have instead thrown one to the Vikings to run back for 6. Given he has done that 4 times this year...its just as likely.That you can't acknowledge that Favre has made some boneheaded throws in his career when faced with blitzes makes me wonder what you have been watching since 1992.