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

[Kleck]

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.

 

[Phase of the Game]

"In other words...you are just going to keep making up things and not even try to debate then claim I am the delusional one.

Talk about funny."

Making things up? You have been presented facts about the Jets and Packers record, Favre's TD numbers, Rodgers admitting to making several mistakes last week, and you saw how Rodgers played today and you claim the Packers would be worse than 4-5 with Favre as the QB. Yes, you are the delusional one.

I'm out and it is fun to watch sho get worked up on this. I hope his head doesn't explode later in the season.

 

[LAUNCH]

While I honestly think it's time to post long recipes..... Brett at this point is better and worse than Aaron. Brett has been making great plays, but he has also thrown up his punt interceptions that have looked real bad. Rodgers came out of the game today with no interceptions, but that was only due to the Vikings ineptness. Rodgers is too concerned about making bad plays and it is going to get him killed. He takes too long to process what is going on sometimes and seems to forget that he needs to get rid of the ball. He has taken more big shots this year than I can remember Favre ever taking. He is more mobile than Favre, but he doesn't have the ability like Favre did to make the first rusher miss him or really at times to see the free rusher. Brett was a master of the pump fake or spin and Aaron needs to learn more of that because it is only a matter of time before the concussions from the big hits start taking place.

 

[bcr8f]

While I honestly think it's time to post long recipes..... Brett at this point is better and worse than Aaron. Brett has been making great plays, but he has also thrown up his punt interceptions that have looked real bad. Rodgers came out of the game today with no interceptions, but that was only due to the Vikings ineptness. Rodgers is too concerned about making bad plays and it is going to get him killed. He takes too long to process what is going on sometimes and seems to forget that he needs to get rid of the ball. He has taken more big shots this year than I can remember Favre ever taking. He is more mobile than Favre, but he doesn't have the ability like Favre did to make the first rusher miss him or really at times to see the free rusher. Brett was a master of the pump fake or spin and Aaron needs to learn more of that because it is only a matter of time before the concussions from the big hits start taking place.

Brett is 39, Rodgers 24 and he had to play to stick with the team. That's all you need to know.

 

[Flash]

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

Wat?

 

[bcr8f]

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

Oh yeah? Prove it.

 

[gigantor]

Only if Favre can kick 52 yarders

 

[phthalatemagic]

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.

 

[sho nuff]

"In other words...you are just going to keep making up things and not even try to debate then claim I am the delusional one.Talk about funny."Making things up? You have been presented facts about the Jets and Packers record, Favre's TD numbers, Rodgers admitting to making several mistakes last week, and you saw how Rodgers played today and you claim the Packers would be worse than 4-5 with Favre as the QB. Yes, you are the delusional one.I'm out and it is fun to watch sho get worked up on this. I hope his head doesn't explode later in the season.

Presenting me just the record and his TD numbers is hardly proving any bias.I saw how the line played today...I saw how the defense played today...I saw how McCarthy coached today...I saw how Crosby missed a FG today.Ive seen how Favre has played this year.Worked up? Nah...just finding your posts in this thread to just be completely laughable...especially how much you spin things.

 

[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.

Don't worry...I know it in this case.Im nuts for sure...but the posts of 2 of the usual suspects in these threads makes me feel even stronger that I am right on this one.

 

[bcr8f]

Only if Favre can kick 52 yarders

The Vikings probably turned the fans on again.

 

[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.

 

[packersfan]

I'm more upset right now that Thompson didn't pull the trigger on the Tony Gonzalez trade. I don't know if there's a TE playing better in the league since the trade deadline than Gonzalez. He had another huge game today.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I'm more upset right now that Thompson didn't pull the trigger on the Tony Gonzalez trade. I don't know if there's a TE playing better in the league since the trade deadline than Gonzalez. He had another huge game today.

That would have been huge for the Pack. I don't remember that though, what could he have given up? A 2nd?

 

[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.

 

[phthalatemagic]

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!

 

[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.

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.

 

[Flash]

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?

 

[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.

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.

 

[ScottyFargo]

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.

 

[Flash]

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.

Ummmm, that's how teams got him to throw so many INT's. Pressure pressure pressure.Anyway, Can't argue this with someone who obviously hasn't watched the Packers for as many years as I have.

Good day sir!

 

[gonzobill5]

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.

EDIT - i meant the only team in the division...however, in a couple of years I can easily see Rodgers being the best QB in the conference. Romo, Eli, Campbell, is anyone else even in the conversation?

 

[Flash]

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.

 

[phthalatemagic]

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.

 

[ScottyFargo]

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.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

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?

 

[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.

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.

 

[Flash]

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.

Ya know what absolutely hysterical? All of these Favre bashers that bashed him for all of his Int's while being pressured all these years and just throwing up the ball, have now come around and are ripping Rodgers and are now praising Favre.Absolutely freaking hysterical.The only thing this proves is:1 - You bashers really have no clue except for the games you see against your team.2 - You are just out to bash Green Bay.Thanks for the ridiculous posts. Make me smile after a game like today.

 

[Flash]

biased...are 12 ints biased?

4 returned for tds

7 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.

He got you

 

[Ookie Pringle]

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.

Ya know what absolutely hysterical? All of these Favre bashers that bashed him for all of his Int's while being pressured all these years and just throwing up the ball, have now come around and are ripping Rodgers and are now praising Favre.Absolutely freaking hysterical.The only thing this proves is:1 - You bashers really have no clue except for the games you see against your team.2 - You are just out to bash Green Bay.Thanks for the ridiculous posts. Make me smile after a game like today.

I think Flash is drunk.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

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.

Ya know what absolutely hysterical? All of these Favre bashers that bashed him for all of his Int's while being pressured all these years and just throwing up the ball, have now come around and are ripping Rodgers and are now praising Favre.Absolutely freaking hysterical.The only thing this proves is:1 - You bashers really have no clue except for the games you see against your team.2 - You are just out to bash Green Bay.Thanks for the ridiculous posts. Make me smile after a game like today.

Rogers has played well this year, and I think the Packers should be lucky to have a good young QB for them going forward. In saying that, do you really think that Favre is not a better QB at this stage in their careers if you are looking to win a championship? I mean sure Favre throws int's but the guy is a winner and one of the best QB's to play his position in the history of the league. I don't think its ridiculous at all to say that Favre would have done more today or this season in leading the Packers to a better record and a better chance at a SB. If you were a defensive coordinator and for one game had to game plan against Favre or Rogers who do you think you would pick??? I think the Packers are happy with what they have in Rogers, but its just unlucky it had to come when Favre could have still been there.

 

[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.

 

[gonzobill5]

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?

Yeah, my spelling sucks. I'm a math teacher. But you missed my point - this decision had the future in mind. While its my opinion that Rodgers makes them a better team today, I don't think Fahvras own mother could argue that the decision was the right one for the future of the Pack. P.S. the packers would have done much better on offense if fakrav didn't give away the game plan to childress.

 

[mozzy84]

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.

Ya know what absolutely hysterical? All of these Favre bashers that bashed him for all of his Int's while being pressured all these years and just throwing up the ball, have now come around and are ripping Rodgers and are now praising Favre.Absolutely freaking hysterical.The only thing this proves is:1 - You bashers really have no clue except for the games you see against your team.2 - You are just out to bash Green Bay.Thanks for the ridiculous posts. Make me smile after a game like today.

its almost as funny as watching the ex fav-re lovers come in here and talk about all the flaws us "bashers" have been pointing out for years

 

[HornedOne]

As a Vikings fan I must say I'm enjoying the hell out of this thread.

I have nothing of value to say, just wanted to express my thanks for the entertainment. Carry on.

 

[Underachievers]

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?

Yeah, my spelling sucks. I'm a math teacher. But you missed my point - this decision had the future in mind. While its my opinion that Rodgers makes them a better team today, I don't think Fahvras own mother could argue that the decision was the right one for the future of the Pack. P.S. the packers would have done much better on offense if fakrav didn't give away the game plan to childress.

LMAO....that is funny! I am a Favre fan....but I might steal that line to get some Favre bashers riled up on another messageboard.

 

[phthalatemagic]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Irish]

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.EDIT - i meant the only team in the division...however, in a couple of years I can easily see Rodgers being the best QB in the conference. Romo, Eli, Campbell, is anyone else even in the conversation?

Matt Ryan

 

[Irish]

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.

Don't forget the pick six that Favre would have given the Viks.

 

[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.

 

[phthalatemagic]

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.

Like I said before, with Favre, the Packers wouldn't have even had the chance to win that game today. With Rogers, they at least had a chance.

 

[gonzobill5]

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.EDIT - i meant the only team in the division...however, in a couple of years I can easily see Rodgers being the best QB in the conference. Romo, Eli, Campbell, is anyone else even in the conversation?

Matt Ryan

Funny, i didn't just forget Ryan, I forgot to consider the entire NFC South. Brees is only 29 too.

 

[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.

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.

Like I said before, with Favre, the Packers wouldn't have even had the chance to win that game today. With Rogers, they at least had a chance.

Good to see you know nothing about the NFL.

 

[Irish]

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.EDIT - i meant the only team in the division...however, in a couple of years I can easily see Rodgers being the best QB in the conference. Romo, Eli, Campbell, is anyone else even in the conversation?

Matt Ryan

Funny, i didn't just forget Ryan, I forgot to consider the entire NFC South. Brees is only 29 too.

Duh, I forgot about Brees as well.

 

[griz145389]

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.

Like I said before, with Favre, the Packers wouldn't have even had the chance to win that game today. With Rogers, they at least had a chance.

Please explain to me how Rodgers gave them a chance to win today. I like Rodgers, and think he could be pretty decent. However he has some areas that he really needs to improve on. He needs to be able to feel pressure when he is in the pocket. He also needs to be able to start making some quicker deliveries.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Good to see you know nothing about the NFL.

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

 

[Phase of the Game]

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.

Like I said before, with Favre, the Packers wouldn't have even had the chance to win that game today. With Rogers, they at least had a chance.

Now tell us how the Packers would have gone 16-0 last year and won the Super Bowl with Rodgers as the QB. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Irish]

Yes Rodgers does need to improve upon those things, but any qb after starting half a season needs to improve on things. Two things are being overlooked is that Rodgers has not benefitted from the great OL play last yr that Favre did and GB defense played a lot better last year as well. All things considered I think Rodgers has played pretty good.

 

[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