How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (3 Viewers)

[nlgb1]

2008 = Favre >>>> Rodgers2010 = Rodgers >>>> FavreWho would have thought that? Simple thought really. People who wanted Favre on the Packers in 2008 wanted a Super Bowl opportunity. People who wanted Rodgers in 2008 wanted to rebuild and that is what happened. No Super Bowl opportunity in 2008 which was arguably a much better shot at happening with Favre instead of Rodgers.

? didnt rodgers go for 28/13 in 2008? in that 2007 game against the cowboys on Thurs night when favre left with injury after doing NOTHING all game, rodgers comes in and torches dallas. i dont think there is a question rodgers was better than favre in 2008, and probably 2007 too

 

[Jagerbomber]

And Rodgers could have refused to extend. Hence people saying there is a chance they lose him.

Exactly.

How is this point still being ignored by some people still amazes me.

 

[FarEastKilla]

Rodger is awesome, but Farve was hot last year and could of won a SB with packers in 09'. The argument what is better for packers is moot because they haven't won a SB with Rodgers, all the fan fair is ridiculous. It's simple to point out a young qb is eventually going to be a better than an 40+ old QB! hell, 50% of the QBs right now are better than a old and busted farve this year. I think packers could of waited a little longer and gotten someone else just as good. last time I checked there is a draft every year.

 

[basher]

Rodger is awesome, but Farve was hot last year and could of won a SB with packers in 09'. The argument what is better for packers is moot because they haven't won a SB with Rodgers, all the fan fair is ridiculous. It's simple to point out a young qb is eventually going to be a better than an 40+ old QB! hell, 50% of the QBs right now are better than a old and busted farve this year. I think packers could of waited a little longer and gotten someone else just as good. last time I checked there is a draft every year.

yes because top QBs seem to be everywhere.............Only a fool would play just for this season and the next. Being short sighted is an easy way to run a franchise into the ground instead of dealing with a year or two lull.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

And Rodgers could have refused to extend. Hence people saying there is a chance they lose him.

Exactly.

How is this point still being ignored by some people still amazes me.

Yet...considering Rodgers was unproven on the field he might have welcomed a contract extension knowing that Favre's last season would have been 2008. Rodgers gets a pay raise without playing and then takes over the team. The point is there is no right answer on if Rodgers leaves or doesn't leave if Favre played in 2008 for the Packers. No one knows for sure what would have happened.

 

[FarEastKilla]

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!

Good new QBs

Just to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, Sanchez, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etc

If any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

Rodger is awesome, but Farve was hot last year and could of won a SB with packers in 09'. The argument what is better for packers is moot because they haven't won a SB with Rodgers, all the fan fair is ridiculous. It's simple to point out a young qb is eventually going to be a better than an 40+ old QB! hell, 50% of the QBs right now are better than a old and busted farve this year. I think packers could of waited a little longer and gotten someone else just as good. last time I checked there is a draft every year.

yes because top QBs seem to be everywhere.............Only a fool would play just for this season and the next. Being short sighted is an easy way to run a franchise into the ground instead of dealing with a year or two lull.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

It is mind-boggling that there is even an argument here.

 

[basher]

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!Good new QBsJust to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etcIf any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

First ... tell this to the Vikings ... they were 13-3 last season and didn't blow things up even though their team was aging ... sometimes it works in your favor and other times it doesn't but banking on a 38+ year old qb is bad business.second Every one of those players aside from Flacco was a top 3 pick ... they really are not "available" and your vick comment is completely hindsight but it also doesn't mean he would be doing what he is doing now in GB. Finally, tell me a QB on your little list you comprised that you would rather have over Rodgers? Bradford is the only one even close but still loses out.

 

[FarEastKilla]

Isn't the topic of this whole post is based on hindsight? great managers make great predictions that's why they get the big pay checks. Isn't winning a SB worth a trade pick? like jets traded for Sanchez? That was an option for the packs and keep Favre, win couple SB with SB caliber Favre, and THAN plan the future with cost of a top draft picks, MM out think himself out of this one (or two SBs). All the listed QBs aren't in a monster offensive machine, therefore their perception might be worse than Rodgers, besides they are younger with exception of Vick, let's wait for the hindsight on them shall we?Bottom line, kicking Farve to the curb for Rodger would of been good only if Farve sucked after he left (not the case, GB Veteran Favre was awesome and SB caliber, especially if he stayed with GB system, SB in 09 maybe even in 08), and or Rodgers won the SB(not the case) PERIOD.

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!Good new QBsJust to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etcIf any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

First ... tell this to the Vikings ... they were 13-3 last season and didn't blow things up even though their team was aging ... sometimes it works in your favor and other times it doesn't but banking on a 38+ year old qb is bad business.second Every one of those players aside from Flacco was a top 3 pick ... they really are not "available" and your vick comment is completely hindsight but it also doesn't mean he would be doing what he is doing now in GB. Finally, tell me a QB on your little list you comprised that you would rather have over Rodgers? Bradford is the only one even close but still loses out.

 

[Steelfan7]

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!

Good new QBs

Just to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, Sanchez, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etc

If any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

Rodger is awesome, but Farve was hot last year and could of won a SB with packers in 09'. The argument what is better for packers is moot because they haven't won a SB with Rodgers, all the fan fair is ridiculous. It's simple to point out a young qb is eventually going to be a better than an 40+ old QB! hell, 50% of the QBs right now are better than a old and busted farve this year. I think packers could of waited a little longer and gotten someone else just as good. last time I checked there is a draft every year.

yes because top QBs seem to be everywhere.............Only a fool would play just for this season and the next. Being short sighted is an easy way to run a franchise into the ground instead of dealing with a year or two lull.

If top qbs grow on trees than why do teams hand over $100 million contracts to them?

 

[sho nuff]

And Rodgers could have refused to extend. Hence people saying there is a chance they lose him.

Exactly.

How is this point still being ignored by some people still amazes me.

Yet...considering Rodgers was unproven on the field he might have welcomed a contract extension knowing that Favre's last season would have been 2008. Rodgers gets a pay raise without playing and then takes over the team. The point is there is no right answer on if Rodgers leaves or doesn't leave if Favre played in 2008 for the Packers. No one knows for sure what would have happened.

Just as nobody knows that the Packers would have won more games in 2008 or 2009 had they had Favre...yet that doesn't stop people like you from claiming they would have.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

And Rodgers could have refused to extend. Hence people saying there is a chance they lose him.

Exactly.

How is this point still being ignored by some people still amazes me.

Yet...considering Rodgers was unproven on the field he might have welcomed a contract extension knowing that Favre's last season would have been 2008. Rodgers gets a pay raise without playing and then takes over the team. The point is there is no right answer on if Rodgers leaves or doesn't leave if Favre played in 2008 for the Packers. No one knows for sure what would have happened.

Just as nobody knows that the Packers would have won more games in 2008 or 2009 had they had Favre...yet that doesn't stop people like you from claiming they would have.

Do you want to provide a link where I said they would have won more games?

 

[Choke]

It is mind-boggling that there is even an argument here.

There isn't.You just have the FBGs version of The Deadliest Catch.

World class fisherman, even if it isnt intentional.

 

[PhilLynott]

It is mind-boggling that there is even an argument here.

I may be drunk but didn't this same argument happen twenty years ago with Montana and Young. A team that has two quality/great QB's has to make a choice. Of course, there will be fans on both sides. It's similar to the Ozzy/Dio Black Sabbath or the DLR/Hagar Van Halen debates. The is no real answer.

 

[sho nuff]

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!

Good new QBs

Just to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, Sanchez, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etc

If any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

Rodger is awesome, but Farve was hot last year and could of won a SB with packers in 09'. The argument what is better for packers is moot because they haven't won a SB with Rodgers, all the fan fair is ridiculous. It's simple to point out a young qb is eventually going to be a better than an 40+ old QB! hell, 50% of the QBs right now are better than a old and busted farve this year. I think packers could of waited a little longer and gotten someone else just as good. last time I checked there is a draft every year.

yes because top QBs seem to be everywhere.............Only a fool would play just for this season and the next. Being short sighted is an easy way to run a franchise into the ground instead of dealing with a year or two lull.

So in your world the Packers would have won 2 super bowls with Brett the last year. Really?

 

[Eric Stratton]

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!

Good new QBs

Just to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, Sanchez, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etc

If any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

Rodger is awesome, but Farve was hot last year and could of won a SB with packers in 09'. The argument what is better for packers is moot because they haven't won a SB with Rodgers, all the fan fair is ridiculous. It's simple to point out a young qb is eventually going to be a better than an 40+ old QB! hell, 50% of the QBs right now are better than a old and busted farve this year. I think packers could of waited a little longer and gotten someone else just as good. last time I checked there is a draft every year.

yes because top QBs seem to be everywhere.............Only a fool would play just for this season and the next. Being short sighted is an easy way to run a franchise into the ground instead of dealing with a year or two lull.

So in your world the Packers would have won 2 super bowls with Brett the last year. Really?

You just have to chime in every chance you get. I don't see where he mentioned anything about 2008 yet you imply he did.

 

[DiStefano]

The fact is, both the Jets and the Vikings signed Favre believing he was the one piece missing for the Superbowl.

Didn't happen.

It wouldn't have happened in Green Bay, either.

I don't know if it will ever happen with Rodgers. But the Packers have a qb who might get them there. That's more than you can say about 25 or so teams in the NFL.

 

[daylight]

I have to chime in here.

Packer Homer here and experienced North (Central) Division observer - born in 1960 - and an amateur student of history (NFL and otherwise).

I've been following this thread on and off for the last couple of months and the argument is stale (favre vs. Rodgers).

Look, in the "old" days (60's) it was mostly players who won championships with the occasional Coach being the tipping point factor (Lombardi, Tom Landry, etc.) Now-A-Days, General Managers and Coaches win most Super Bowls, not players.

How many times have we seen teams with "more talent" defeat teams with "less talent". This is happening more and more (this year is a great example, especially Dallas). With Million Dollar films, film rooms, studies, Coaches, etc. it's no longer which team has the most talent but it is about match ups and which coach is better at exploiting them.

That said, I will address Favre. The guy is a GM/coach'es nightmare. I have seen every Packer game for decades and never, and I mean it never have been glad to see a guy off my team. Throughout his entire career he has been a choker, throwing INTs and letting balls "slip" out of his fingers (if I had a nickel) at the most ridiculous junctures in the game. The guy is way overrated. Sure, he is a special football player in the sense of arm strength, talent, durability, etc., however, the hype around his records overshadows his detriment to his team. It's a Team Game and he is not a Team Player. It's a Team Game and he did not win a Super Bowl. He was in the right place at the right time. And in addition, Holmgren spent most of his time keeping the lid on Favre's Me-First Antics. Let's look at the 96 Super Bowl. Fritz Sherman (God rest his soul) won that season and that championship for the Pack. For goodness sakes, the Pack only allowed 19 TDs all season! A lot of QBs could have won it all with that to work with (remember Trent Dilfer in 2001?). And the year following? The Pack got to the big game but questionable decisions (not just me but the players wondered aloud about it (Dorsey Levens)) and Holmgren blew it. Coaches win it and lose it.

After Holmgren left, no-one was there to keep a lid on the guy and he was gun-slinger to the absurd.

Favre's performance in the 2009 NFC championship was Classic Favre. Choke. These questions are ridiculous about "would the pack win the sb with favre over rodgers"? Who cares? The guy obviously had to go - witness the 2007 nfc championship. More Classic Favre. The real question is "what GM/coach would trust Favre"? I wouldn't. After watching Every Single Game the Bust Played in His Nearly Two Decade Career I couldn't have been more happy to bring on the Aaron Rodgers Era.

If Fitz Sherman hadn't been there with his awesome defense and Holmgren with his (and only he could do it) ability to keep the lid on Favre's ridiculousness folks wouldn't talking about Favre the way they do.

 

[fatness]

The fact is, both the Jets and the Vikings signed Favre believing he was the one piece missing for the Superbowl.Didn't happen.

And both coaches got fired.

 

[PhilLynott]

The fact is, both the Jets and the Vikings signed Favre believing he was the one piece missing for the Superbowl.Didn't happen.

And both coaches got fired.

Amazing how the Packers knew what they had. "Should we go with an over the hill HOF'er or a rock solid young stud." "Let someone else live and die with the Princess" See you in the HOF Brettina.

 

[Sundog]

Why is this thread still going? I'm not going to read through it -- but I can't imagine anyone is actually questioning the move to Rodgers, are they?

 

[fatness]

Why is this thread still going? I'm not going to read through it -- but I can't imagine anyone is actually questioning the move to Rodgers, are they?

The 3 members of the Favre Defense League and their aliases are.

 

[Das Boot]

Isn't the topic of this whole post is based on hindsight? great managers make great predictions that's why they get the big pay checks. Isn't winning a SB worth a trade pick? like jets traded for Sanchez? That was an option for the packs and keep Favre, win couple SB with SB caliber Favre, and THAN plan the future with cost of a top draft picks, MM out think himself out of this one (or two SBs). All the listed QBs aren't in a monster offensive machine, therefore their perception might be worse than Rodgers, besides they are younger with exception of Vick, let's wait for the hindsight on them shall we?

Bottom line, kicking Farve to the curb for Rodger would of been good only if Farve sucked after he left (not the case, GB Veteran Favre was awesome and SB caliber, especially if he stayed with GB system, SB in 09 maybe even in 08), and or Rodgers won the SB(not the case) PERIOD.

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!

Good new QBs

Just to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etc

If any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

First ... tell this to the Vikings ... they were 13-3 last season and didn't blow things up even though their team was aging ... sometimes it works in your favor and other times it doesn't but banking on a 38+ year old qb is bad business.second Every one of those players aside from Flacco was a top 3 pick ... they really are not "available" and your vick comment is completely hindsight but it also doesn't mean he would be doing what he is doing now in GB. Finally, tell me a QB on your little list you comprised that you would rather have over Rodgers? Bradford is the only one even close but still loses out.

Rodgers wasn't equivalent to any rookie... he was a proven commodity to the Packers, AND had several years of incredibly valuable experience in learning GB's offensive system, and in proving he was a good team guy. And showing he was coachable, and keeping out of trouble off the field.Rodgers could not have been replaced by any rookie in the short term and it would have taken extreme luck to draft someone who would be his equivalent in all of the above areas 3 years after being drafted.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Why is this thread still going? I'm not going to read through it -- but I can't imagine anyone is actually questioning the move to Rodgers, are they?

sho nuff and The 3 members of the Favre Defense League and their aliases are.

 

[Eric Stratton]

This will be an interesting final 6 games to watch for the Packers. Hoepfully Rodgers and McCarthy can improve on their records in close games because it is likely that some of these games will be close. They will need those wins to take the NFC North to help get a bye and get one or two home playoff games. I think it will be a great test this weekend at Atlanta. Hopefully they can rise up like they did against the Jets.

 

[GoBirds]

This will be an interesting final 6 games to watch for the Packers. Hoepfully Rodgers and McCarthy can improve on their records in close games because it is likely that some of these games will be close. They will need those wins to take the NFC North to help get a bye and get one or two home playoff games. I think it will be a great test this weekend at Atlanta. Hopefully they can rise up like they did against the Jets.

After Jennings, who do you see as Rodger's top targets over the last 6?

 

[Eric Stratton]

This will be an interesting final 6 games to watch for the Packers. Hoepfully Rodgers and McCarthy can improve on their records in close games because it is likely that some of these games will be close. They will need those wins to take the NFC North to help get a bye and get one or two home playoff games. I think it will be a great test this weekend at Atlanta. Hopefully they can rise up like they did against the Jets.

After Jennings, who do you see as Rodger's top targets over the last 6?

That is tough but it looks like Jones has improved on the drops he had earlier this season and Driver's age is showing. It would be nice to have Finley around and I don't see the TE's getting many looks. Right now it is Jenning, Jones, and Driver with Nelson getting some looks. Go Pack!

 

[camperguy01]

I am more of a lurker here than a poster but I also need to chime in.

The bottom line is Favre jerked the Packer organization for years before they gave up on him. As General Manager your primary goal is to devise a plan that will create a championship caliber team. How exactly are you supposed to do that when a player at one of the most important positions on the team is jerking the entire organization around?

One often forgotten item - After Favre announced his retirement, Ted Thompson in preparation to fill the QB spot drafted not one but 2 quarterbacks in the next draft. So the Packers are sitting there with Aaron Rodgers and 2 rookie QB's - Brian Brohm & Matt Flynn. Favre decides he wants to come back. What were the Packers supposed to do - keep 4 QB's on the roster? If Favre wouldn't have retired I'm certain Thompson wouldn't have drafted 2 QB's and used one of those picks to beef up another need on the team. Thompson is a GM that uses the draft more than free agency to build his team - he had to feel some frustration by Favre's indecisiveness.

Thompson made the right call.

 

[sho nuff]

True, but it's more foolish giving up when packers are so close of reaching an ultimate goal and START OVER(looking to the future of achieving the same goal, when you can achieve the same goal now.) Looking good starting over might look good but it's still extremely foolish. So unless rodgers wins more SB than farve than it's a bad move!

Good new QBs

Just to name a few, matty ice, Sam Bradford, Stafford, Flacco, Sanchez, etc etc plus at least one every year, oh yeah there is also FA, Vick. etc

If any of those QBs are in a offensive machine like the packers they would of achieving the same stats.

Rodger is awesome, but Farve was hot last year and could of won a SB with packers in 09'. The argument what is better for packers is moot because they haven't won a SB with Rodgers, all the fan fair is ridiculous. It's simple to point out a young qb is eventually going to be a better than an 40+ old QB! hell, 50% of the QBs right now are better than a old and busted farve this year. I think packers could of waited a little longer and gotten someone else just as good. last time I checked there is a draft every year.

yes because top QBs seem to be everywhere.............Only a fool would play just for this season and the next. Being short sighted is an easy way to run a franchise into the ground instead of dealing with a year or two lull.

So in your world the Packers would have won 2 super bowls with Brett the last year. Really?

You just have to chime in every chance you get. I don't see where he mentioned anything about 2008 yet you imply he did.

Post 2813 he mentions them winning a couple super bowls...

 

[daylight]

I am more of a lurker here than a poster but I also need to chime in.The bottom line is Favre jerked the Packer organization for years before they gave up on him. As General Manager your primary goal is to devise a plan that will create a championship caliber team. How exactly are you supposed to do that when a player at one of the most important positions on the team is jerking the entire organization around? One often forgotten item - After Favre announced his retirement, Ted Thompson in preparation to fill the QB spot drafted not one but 2 quarterbacks in the next draft. So the Packers are sitting there with Aaron Rodgers and 2 rookie QB's - Brian Brohm & Matt Flynn. Favre decides he wants to come back. What were the Packers supposed to do - keep 4 QB's on the roster? If Favre wouldn't have retired I'm certain Thompson wouldn't have drafted 2 QB's and used one of those picks to beef up another need on the team. Thompson is a GM that uses the draft more than free agency to build his team - he had to feel some frustration by Favre's indecisiveness.Thompson made the right call.

I totally agree with this post accept that I think you didn't mean "gave up on him" - they did the right thing and never gave up on him even though he was acting like a jerk. They stuck with him until he announced to the world no more and then they moved on.

 

[Sudsy]

Success in football requires a plan to get the right players. Prior to the 2005 draft Favre had started grossing or hinting that his days were numbered. The Packers had needs in that draft. ( I know, G.M.'s always draft the BPA but it is remarkable how it is so often at a need.) At any rate the Packers could have used a stout D.T.- Grady jackson being on his last legs, a great guard- Favre having seen his guards leave and Will Whitacker not really being an answer, help at reciever, and somebody to replace the human penalty machine of Ahmad Carroll. They did not need a Q.B. except for Favre's statements.

No team that wishes to remain successful, or to be successful, can ignore the Q.B. position. Given Favre's statements when their choice rolled around at #25 and Aaron Rodgers name was still on the board they had little choice other than to protect the franchise. I'm sure they would have preferred to have drafted Luis Castillo, Roddy White, or Logan Mankins, all of whom were available. I imagine any of those players may have been more impactful say during a championship game in Lambeau two years later than was a back up Q.B.

In short Favre made his own bed. His grousing brought in Rodgers.

Well Favre's grousing continued while Rodgers grew. Rodgers did have an opportunity in 2007 to show his stuff agaist Dallas, a team with whom the Packers have some history. In a few impactful minutes Rodgers showed that he may be ready in 2007. Still Favre craved attention. Favre announced his retirement, again and this time openly and formally, after the season. In response the Packers used 2 draft choices in the 2008 draft to subliment the position.

Rodgers was coming up for Free Agency. He had waited patiently for an opportunity and it was clear after his performance in the Dallas game in november(?) of 2007 that if the Packers did not provide it some other team would. The Packers had to make a choice, they choose Rodgers.

Now part of this choice involved Favre's belief that the Packers could not get him what he deserved, another championship, while his friends on the Vikings could as they appeared ascendent. The Vikings having smelled the air undoubtedly tampered with Favre. Bevell put ideas in his simple head. All the Vikings needed, they thought was a Q.B., and rules be damned why not tamper with Favre given his public statements over the last couple of years. They have denied it but it was self-evident to all except the Commissioner and biased Viking Fans. The NYJ deal was worked out with attempted, at first, poison pills should they or he manufacture a way for Favre to get to the Vikes. Interesting that is exactly where he ended up. (The commissioner showed a remarkable lack of curiosity at this)

So, the choice. TT could have choosen history. Of course that history was a disruptive prima donna who made planning impossible, who was at the end of his career, who was then uncoachable, who was attempting to run the franchise and poutiing when he could not get his personnel moves implemented, and who was conspiring with a division rival, or he could go with the promise of the future. He could go with the patient young guy who had waited silently, sublimating his self interest for the team. He could go with the guy who had shown such flashes of brilliance against Dallas when Favre went out.

An absolute no brainer except for those who wish to bait Packer fans.

 

[sho nuff]

Do you want to provide a link where I said they would have won more games?

So, for 2 years you have chimed into these threads to bash me...and you are now claiming you never once said they would have won more games with Favre?Really?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Do you want to provide a link where I said they would have won more games?

So, for 2 years you have chimed into these threads to bash me...and you are now claiming you never once said they would have won more games with Favre?Really?

I see you can't find a link. Not to mention you likely spent time looking for one! It's just too easy with you.

 

[sho nuff]

Do you want to provide a link where I said they would have won more games?

So, for 2 years you have chimed into these threads to bash me...and you are now claiming you never once said they would have won more games with Favre?Really?

I see you can't find a link. Not to mention you likely spent time looking for one! It's just too easy with you.

Ok, so I guess you will claim that.BTW...I spent all of 5 minutes looking and already had the links.

Enjoy...

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052764

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052712

Giving records, you weren’t saying Favre would have had more wins right? So what was the point in posting that?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11083320

Packers with Favre = winners

Packers without Favre = losers

Yeah, you are not saying they would have more wins with him with that one either right?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Do you want to provide a link where I said they would have won more games?

So, for 2 years you have chimed into these threads to bash me...and you are now claiming you never once said they would have won more games with Favre?Really?

I see you can't find a link. Not to mention you likely spent time looking for one! It's just too easy with you.

Ok, so I guess you will claim that.BTW...I spent all of 5 minutes looking and already had the links.

Enjoy...

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052764

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052712

Giving records, you weren’t saying Favre would have had more wins right? So what was the point in posting that?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11083320

Packers with Favre = winners

Packers without Favre = losers

Yeah, you are not saying they would have more wins with him with that one either right?

Are you serious? Those were FACTS that were posted about won-loss records. Those won-loss records could have been the same with Favre as well. However, those facts I posted drove you nuts which is why they are fun to do because you love stinky bait.There was no editorial involved in that other than the quote from Nov. 2009 that is above which was based on actual won-loss records. There is nothing in here recently that supports your quote of "stop people like you from claiming they would have."

At thanks for taking time to research that. 5 minutes? In case you missed I asked for a link last night and got nothing from you!

 

[Eric Stratton]

Do you want to provide a link where I said they would have won more games?

So, for 2 years you have chimed into these threads to bash me...and you are now claiming you never once said they would have won more games with Favre?Really?

I see you can't find a link. Not to mention you likely spent time looking for one! It's just too easy with you.

Ok, so I guess you will claim that.BTW...I spent all of 5 minutes looking and already had the links.

Enjoy...

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052764

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052712

Giving records, you weren’t saying Favre would have had more wins right? So what was the point in posting that?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11083320

Packers with Favre = winners

Packers without Favre = losers

Yeah, you are not saying they would have more wins with him with that one either right?

Weak, sho...very weak.I see facts in those links that use won loss records at the time of those posts.

 

[sho nuff]

Do you want to provide a link where I said they would have won more games?

So, for 2 years you have chimed into these threads to bash me...and you are now claiming you never once said they would have won more games with Favre?Really?

I see you can't find a link. Not to mention you likely spent time looking for one! It's just too easy with you.

Ok, so I guess you will claim that.BTW...I spent all of 5 minutes looking and already had the links.

Enjoy...

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052764

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11052712

Giving records, you weren’t saying Favre would have had more wins right? So what was the point in posting that?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=11083320

Packers with Favre = winners

Packers without Favre = losers

Yeah, you are not saying they would have more wins with him with that one either right?

Are you serious? Those were FACTS that were posted about won-loss records. Those won-loss records could have been the same with Favre as well. However, those facts I posted drove you nuts which is why they are fun to do because you love stinky bait.There was no editorial involved in that other than the quote from Nov. 2009 that is above which was based on actual won-loss records. There is nothing in here recently that supports your quote of "stop people like you from claiming they would have."

At thanks for taking time to research that. 5 minutes? In case you missed I asked for a link last night and got nothing from you!

But why post those records if you are not saying he would have won more games?Those records did not drive me nuts...they made me laugh at you.

Like Im laughing at your spin, twist, and denial right now.

And yes "people like you" was not meaning just you...which is why I used those specific words chief.

There were plenty like you that posted the record...and those that kept claiming they would have won more.

You have a guy the last few days claiming they would have won possibly a couple of Super Bowls.

So now I need to show a recent quote? Really.

Yes, you asked for it last night. I didn't even take a look last night because I was not going to search for it on my phone.

But its fun watching you squirm now to spin away from your own words.

Packers with Favre=winners

Packers without=losers.

Somehow you are claiming you are not saying they would have won more with him.

Hilarious...that is priceless.

 

[sho nuff]

Weak, sho...very weak.I see facts in those links that use won loss records at the time of those posts.

And what is the meaning of posting those records or things like Packers with Favre = winnersPackers without Favre = losers if he is not saying they would have won more with him?Are you seriously going to defend that out of your dislike for me?Really?

 

[Eric Stratton]

Weak, sho...very weak.I see facts in those links that use won loss records at the time of those posts.

And what is the meaning of posting those records or things like Packers with Favre = winnersPackers without Favre = losers if he is not saying they would have won more with him?Are you seriously going to defend that out of your dislike for me?Really?

For God's sake would you chill out. He posted FACTS with no mention those records would be different if Favre was playing for the Packers. Dislike? Get over yourself already.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

But why post those records if you are not saying he would have won more games?

Based on the records as of Nov. 2009 when that was written the Packers had a losing record after Favre left. That's a fact and those facts were posted because of the reaction it would create with you. Over one year later it still is getting you all riled up! You will read what you want into that which doesn't surprise anyone here. Please move on.

 

[sho nuff]

Weak, sho...very weak.I see facts in those links that use won loss records at the time of those posts.

And what is the meaning of posting those records or things like Packers with Favre = winnersPackers without Favre = losers if he is not saying they would have won more with him?Are you seriously going to defend that out of your dislike for me?Really?

For God's sake would you chill out. He posted FACTS with no mention those records would be different if Favre was playing for the Packers. Dislike? Get over yourself already.

So answer the question...why would he have posted those records if not to say that?Why would he claim "Packers with Favre = Winners...Packers without Favre = Losers" if he is not trying to say they would have won more with him?Its a simple question...can you answer it.As for chill out...Im quite chilled out...I didn't jump in to this as you did. Maybe you should calm it down a bit.This is twice you have jumped in on things I have said the last 2 days to defend other posters and deny their own words.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Weak, sho...very weak.I see facts in those links that use won loss records at the time of those posts.

And what is the meaning of posting those records or things like Packers with Favre = winnersPackers without Favre = losers if he is not saying they would have won more with him?Are you seriously going to defend that out of your dislike for me?Really?

For God's sake would you chill out. He posted FACTS with no mention those records would be different if Favre was playing for the Packers. Dislike? Get over yourself already.

So answer the question...why would he have posted those records if not to say that?Why would he claim "Packers with Favre = Winners...Packers without Favre = Losers" if he is not trying to say they would have won more with him?Its a simple question...can you answer it.As for chill out...Im quite chilled out...I didn't jump in to this as you did. Maybe you should calm it down a bit.This is twice you have jumped in on things I have said the last 2 days to defend other posters and deny their own words.

priceless!

 

[sho nuff]

But why post those records if you are not saying he would have won more games?

Based on the records as of Nov. 2009 when that was written the Packers had a losing record after Favre left. That's a fact and those facts were posted because of the reaction it would create with you. Over one year later it still is getting you all riled up! You will read what you want into that which doesn't surprise anyone here. Please move on.

So...you were fishing for a response and when you claimed with Favre they were winners and without they were losers...it had nothing to do with thinking they would win more with him.That is the worst denial ever.Pretty sad.And want to know what doesn't surprise anyone...people like you (yes...that includes you and a few select others) are still in denial about Favre and the Packers decision.Its ok, you can admit that they made the right decisions...I think by now its at least 90% that can agree with that.Some of you are still holding on though and need to move on.I will keep posting in support of the decision as long as some of you continue to live in such painful denial.And don't flatter yourself...nothing you have ever posted on this board has gotten me riled up.

 

[Eric Stratton]

But why post those records if you are not saying he would have won more games?

Based on the records as of Nov. 2009 when that was written the Packers had a losing record after Favre left. That's a fact and those facts were posted because of the reaction it would create with you. Over one year later it still is getting you all riled up! You will read what you want into that which doesn't surprise anyone here. Please move on.

So...you were fishing for a response and when you claimed with Favre they were winners and without they were losers...it had nothing to do with thinking they would win more with him.That is the worst denial ever.Pretty sad.And want to know what doesn't surprise anyone...people like you (yes...that includes you and a few select others) are still in denial about Favre and the Packers decision.Its ok, you can admit that they made the right decisions...I think by now its at least 90% that can agree with that.Some of you are still holding on though and need to move on.I will keep posting in support of the decision as long as some of you continue to live in such painful denial.And don't flatter yourself...nothing you have ever posted on this board has gotten me riled up.

Nothing like a good old sho nuff meltdown to start the morning.

 

[sho nuff]

Weak, sho...very weak.I see facts in those links that use won loss records at the time of those posts.

And what is the meaning of posting those records or things like Packers with Favre = winnersPackers without Favre = losers if he is not saying they would have won more with him?Are you seriously going to defend that out of your dislike for me?Really?

For God's sake would you chill out. He posted FACTS with no mention those records would be different if Favre was playing for the Packers. Dislike? Get over yourself already.

So answer the question...why would he have posted those records if not to say that?Why would he claim "Packers with Favre = Winners...Packers without Favre = Losers" if he is not trying to say they would have won more with him?Its a simple question...can you answer it.As for chill out...Im quite chilled out...I didn't jump in to this as you did. Maybe you should calm it down a bit.This is twice you have jumped in on things I have said the last 2 days to defend other posters and deny their own words.

priceless!

Just as I thought...you won't answer it.Why can't you answer a simple question?I know why...because you know its admitting I am dead on correct about Beaver.This is not from experience over 2 days with the guy...its 2 years of experience dealing with he and a few others.

 

[sho nuff]

Nothing like 2 posters think me slapping their denial around is a meltdown.

BTW...the point of this thread..the decision to go with Rodgers still looks very good and the team is set up for the future.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Just as I thought...you won't answer it.Why can't you answer a simple question?I know why...because you know its admitting I am dead on correct about Beaver.This is not from experience over 2 days with the guy...its 2 years of experience dealing with he and a few others.

 

[sho nuff]

Just as I thought...you won't answer it.Why can't you answer a simple question?I know why...because you know its admitting I am dead on correct about Beaver.This is not from experience over 2 days with the guy...its 2 years of experience dealing with he and a few others.

I can post icons too.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Just as I thought...you won't answer it.Why can't you answer a simple question?I know why...because you know its admitting I am dead on correct about Beaver.This is not from experience over 2 days with the guy...its 2 years of experience dealing with he and a few others.

I can post icons too.

We are so proud you can. You earn one gold star today.

 

[bostonfred]

The thing that gets me in all of this is the Packers fans who have turned on Favre. He's still one of my favorite players ever to play the game, and I went out of my way to get tickets to the Pats/Vikes game earlier this year to get one last chance to see him. I used to buy into the notion that the Green Bay contingent was special - that there was some kind of loyal fanbase who bought shares in the team and sold out the stadium in the freezing cold despite their tiny market and was part of the lore of the NFL. Now I look at them as just one more group of jaded fans who will turn on the greatest player in franchise history and talk about him like just another former player in the era of free agency. This is easily the uncoolest response by a fanbase that I can remember to any event in sports in my lifetime.