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

[Leroy's Aces]

Let's check the stats and throw Pennington into the mix:

Favre through 10 games:

2237 yards, 18 TDs, 12 ints, 93 passer rating

Pennington through 9 games:

2200 yards, 8 TDs, 5 ints, 92.6 passer rating

Rodgers through 9 games (and a tougher schedule than either team):

2124 yards, 13 Tds, 5 ints, 93.3 passer rating

Pace for a 16 game season:

Favre - 3579 yards, 28.8 TDs, 19.2 ints, 92.6 rating

Pennington - 3911 yards, 14.2 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93 rating

Rodgers - 3776 yards, 23.1 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93.3 rating

Pro Football Prospectus had the Jets schedule as very easy, I think 30th this year, Miami was in the low 20s and Green Bay's schedule was I think 12-14th.

According to Football Outsiders DVOA rankings, Green Bay is currently the 7th best team in the NFL, the Jets are 13th and Miami is 15th.

The Packers Schedule

WINS

Indy 5-4

Seattle 2-7

Minny 5-4

Detroit 0-9

LOSSES (Rodgers performance)

Tennessee 9-0 (1 int threw for 314 yards on road)

Minny 5-4 (0 ints)

Atlanta 6-3 (1 int, 313 yards, 3 TDs)

Tampa Bay 6-3 (3 ints, 2 TDs - his only truly poor game)

Dallas 5-4 (0 ints, 290 yards)

Combined record opponent record is 43-38 and that includes a winless team. Winning percentage is 53%, with 6 out of 9 games vs. teams with winning records.

They have beaten Indianapolis and Minny, two playoff-caliber teams, and also beaten Seattle and Detroit, two poor teams. Green Bay came closer than any other team to beating Tennessee. They lost on the road to a playoff team, Tampa, lost at home to a playoff team Atlanta, and lost to an at-the-time full-strength Dallas team. I see no reason to have any issue with how the team has done, especially given the injuries to the defense, poor O-line play and Ryan Grant's being injured to start the season.

Who have the Jets played you ask? (having played 10 games now)

WINS

Cincinnati 1-8

Kansas City 2-7 (almost lost to a 2-7 team as Favre threw 3 ints, 28-24 final)

St. Louis 2-7

Buffalo 6-4

Arizona 6-3

Miami 5-4

New England 6-4

LOSSES (Favre's performance)

Oakland Raiders 2-7 (2 ints, 0 TDs)

San Diego 4-5 (2 ints with 3 TDs)

New England 6-4 (1 int, 1 TD)

Combined opponent record 40-53. Winning percentage is 43%. Four of the Jets first 10 opponents make up four out of five of the worst teams in the entire NFL.

If you factor in the schedule, Rodgers is playing much better than Favre, given that they have relatively equal passer ratings.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Terry Bradshaw appears to be heavily on the side of Favre here given the Pack's success and apparently puts most of the negative slidebacks on the feet of the QB, not the coaching or everybody else sliding back. I agree with the opinion that Rodgers isn't playing poorly however, the correlation might not be what we're building it up to be.

I got the impression Bradshaw is blaming McCarthy for not figuring out what is wrong with the team and how to properly adjust without Favre. He also gave McCarthy a bunch of credit for how he handled Favre last year.

Yeah I guess all I heard was him praising McCarthy for last year's coaching the team to the Championship. He was certainly convinced of his opinion. It was interesting to hear a dissenting opinion and such an open statement of Favre's time in Green Bay the last few seasons.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Hell try looking at what some of the other great QB's past and present have done in their first season as a starter. Not so great to say the least.

I dunno about that Sleeperz. I think the first full seasons of great QB's like Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady & now, possibly Matt Ryan, have all been pretty darn good.

Rodgers in his first year looks terrific compared to some of the elite QB's when they were first at the helm.

There's no way in Hades that would I say Rodgers 1st year looks terrific compared to the 1st year of the above mentioned elite QB's. All of the 1st full years of the above mentioned elite QB's, makes Rodgers 1st full year look more like some scrub hack back-up QB's 1st year. To me, the argument made here, was neither strong, nor convincing.

how many of those qbs were taking over as high draft picks?Usually a high draft pick means it was a bad team. Rodgers inherited a very good team with great receivers.

 

[Flash]

Terry Bradshaw appears to be heavily on the side of Favre here given the Pack's success and apparently puts most of the negative slidebacks on the feet of the QB, not the coaching or everybody else sliding back. I agree with the opinion that Rodgers isn't playing poorly however, the correlation might not be what we're building it up to be.

I love Bradshaw but he totally whiffed here. Obviously he hasn't watched a Packer game this year.He really looked like a fool with this rant.

 

[hauser42]

What a difference a week can make. O-Line played the best game of the year for the Packers and they mauled the Bears. Rodgers breaks the Bears winning streak at Green Bay. Guess he has done something better than what Brett could do the last 4 years.

 

[Phase of the Game]

What a difference a week can make. O-Line played the best game of the year for the Packers and they mauled the Bears. Rodgers breaks the Bears winning streak at Green Bay. Guess he has done something better than what Brett could do the last 4 years.

Here are is the won/loss info for Favre against the Bears.22-10 record against the Bears12-3 on the road10-7 at homeGreat game today by the Packers and Rodgers.

 

[Sabertooth]

What a difference a week can make. O-Line played the best game of the year for the Packers and they mauled the Bears. Rodgers breaks the Bears winning streak at Green Bay. Guess he has done something better than what Brett could do the last 4 years.

Here are is the won/loss info for Favre against the Bears.22-10 record against the Bears12-3 on the road10-7 at homeGreat game today by the Packers and Rodgers.

Lovie Smith was 4-0 in Lambeau previous to today. Not any more.

 

[puckalicious]

Let's check the stats and throw Pennington into the mix:Favre through 10 games:2237 yards, 18 TDs, 12 ints, 93 passer ratingPennington through 9 games:2200 yards, 8 TDs, 5 ints, 92.6 passer ratingRodgers through 9 games (and a tougher schedule than either team):2124 yards, 13 Tds, 5 ints, 93.3 passer ratingPace for a 16 game season:Favre - 3579 yards, 28.8 TDs, 19.2 ints, 92.6 ratingPennington - 3911 yards, 14.2 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93 ratingRodgers - 3776 yards, 23.1 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93.3 ratingPro Football Prospectus had the Jets schedule as very easy, I think 30th this year, Miami was in the low 20s and Green Bay's schedule was I think 12-14th.According to Football Outsiders DVOA rankings, Green Bay is currently the 7th best team in the NFL, the Jets are 13th and Miami is 15th.The Packers ScheduleWINSIndy 5-4Seattle 2-7Minny 5-4Detroit 0-9LOSSES (Rodgers performance)Tennessee 9-0 (1 int threw for 314 yards on road)Minny 5-4 (0 ints)Atlanta 6-3 (1 int, 313 yards, 3 TDs)Tampa Bay 6-3 (3 ints, 2 TDs - his only truly poor game)Dallas 5-4 (0 ints, 290 yards)Combined record opponent record is 43-38 and that includes a winless team. Winning percentage is 53%, with 6 out of 9 games vs. teams with winning records.They have beaten Indianapolis and Minny, two playoff-caliber teams, and also beaten Seattle and Detroit, two poor teams. Green Bay came closer than any other team to beating Tennessee. They lost on the road to a playoff team, Tampa, lost at home to a playoff team Atlanta, and lost to an at-the-time full-strength Dallas team. I see no reason to have any issue with how the team has done, especially given the injuries to the defense, poor O-line play and Ryan Grant's being injured to start the season.Who have the Jets played you ask? (having played 10 games now)WINSCincinnati 1-8Kansas City 2-7 (almost lost to a 2-7 team as Favre threw 3 ints, 28-24 final)St. Louis 2-7Buffalo 6-4Arizona 6-3Miami 5-4New England 6-4LOSSES (Favre's performance)Oakland Raiders 2-7 (2 ints, 0 TDs)San Diego 4-5 (2 ints with 3 TDs)New England 6-4 (1 int, 1 TD)Combined opponent record 40-53. Winning percentage is 43%. Four of the Jets first 10 opponents make up four out of five of the worst teams in the entire NFL.If you factor in the schedule, Rodgers is playing much better than Favre, given that they have relatively equal passer ratings.

Hands down the best post of this mostly useless, 3rd grade mentality thread.

 

[Flash]

Let's check the stats and throw Pennington into the mix:Favre through 10 games:2237 yards, 18 TDs, 12 ints, 93 passer ratingPennington through 9 games:2200 yards, 8 TDs, 5 ints, 92.6 passer ratingRodgers through 9 games (and a tougher schedule than either team):2124 yards, 13 Tds, 5 ints, 93.3 passer ratingPace for a 16 game season:Favre - 3579 yards, 28.8 TDs, 19.2 ints, 92.6 ratingPennington - 3911 yards, 14.2 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93 ratingRodgers - 3776 yards, 23.1 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93.3 ratingPro Football Prospectus had the Jets schedule as very easy, I think 30th this year, Miami was in the low 20s and Green Bay's schedule was I think 12-14th.According to Football Outsiders DVOA rankings, Green Bay is currently the 7th best team in the NFL, the Jets are 13th and Miami is 15th.The Packers ScheduleWINSIndy 5-4Seattle 2-7Minny 5-4Detroit 0-9LOSSES (Rodgers performance)Tennessee 9-0 (1 int threw for 314 yards on road)Minny 5-4 (0 ints)Atlanta 6-3 (1 int, 313 yards, 3 TDs)Tampa Bay 6-3 (3 ints, 2 TDs - his only truly poor game)Dallas 5-4 (0 ints, 290 yards)Combined record opponent record is 43-38 and that includes a winless team. Winning percentage is 53%, with 6 out of 9 games vs. teams with winning records.They have beaten Indianapolis and Minny, two playoff-caliber teams, and also beaten Seattle and Detroit, two poor teams. Green Bay came closer than any other team to beating Tennessee. They lost on the road to a playoff team, Tampa, lost at home to a playoff team Atlanta, and lost to an at-the-time full-strength Dallas team. I see no reason to have any issue with how the team has done, especially given the injuries to the defense, poor O-line play and Ryan Grant's being injured to start the season.Who have the Jets played you ask? (having played 10 games now)WINSCincinnati 1-8Kansas City 2-7 (almost lost to a 2-7 team as Favre threw 3 ints, 28-24 final)St. Louis 2-7Buffalo 6-4Arizona 6-3Miami 5-4New England 6-4LOSSES (Favre's performance)Oakland Raiders 2-7 (2 ints, 0 TDs)San Diego 4-5 (2 ints with 3 TDs)New England 6-4 (1 int, 1 TD)Combined opponent record 40-53. Winning percentage is 43%. Four of the Jets first 10 opponents make up four out of five of the worst teams in the entire NFL.If you factor in the schedule, Rodgers is playing much better than Favre, given that they have relatively equal passer ratings.

Hands down the best post of this mostly useless, 3rd grade mentality thread.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Let's check the stats and throw Pennington into the mix:Favre through 10 games:2237 yards, 18 TDs, 12 ints, 93 passer ratingPennington through 9 games:2200 yards, 8 TDs, 5 ints, 92.6 passer ratingRodgers through 9 games (and a tougher schedule than either team):2124 yards, 13 Tds, 5 ints, 93.3 passer ratingPace for a 16 game season:Favre - 3579 yards, 28.8 TDs, 19.2 ints, 92.6 ratingPennington - 3911 yards, 14.2 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93 ratingRodgers - 3776 yards, 23.1 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93.3 ratingPro Football Prospectus had the Jets schedule as very easy, I think 30th this year, Miami was in the low 20s and Green Bay's schedule was I think 12-14th.According to Football Outsiders DVOA rankings, Green Bay is currently the 7th best team in the NFL, the Jets are 13th and Miami is 15th.The Packers ScheduleWINSIndy 5-4Seattle 2-7Minny 5-4Detroit 0-9LOSSES (Rodgers performance)Tennessee 9-0 (1 int threw for 314 yards on road)Minny 5-4 (0 ints)Atlanta 6-3 (1 int, 313 yards, 3 TDs)Tampa Bay 6-3 (3 ints, 2 TDs - his only truly poor game)Dallas 5-4 (0 ints, 290 yards)Combined record opponent record is 43-38 and that includes a winless team. Winning percentage is 53%, with 6 out of 9 games vs. teams with winning records.They have beaten Indianapolis and Minny, two playoff-caliber teams, and also beaten Seattle and Detroit, two poor teams. Green Bay came closer than any other team to beating Tennessee. They lost on the road to a playoff team, Tampa, lost at home to a playoff team Atlanta, and lost to an at-the-time full-strength Dallas team. I see no reason to have any issue with how the team has done, especially given the injuries to the defense, poor O-line play and Ryan Grant's being injured to start the season.Who have the Jets played you ask? (having played 10 games now)WINSCincinnati 1-8Kansas City 2-7 (almost lost to a 2-7 team as Favre threw 3 ints, 28-24 final)St. Louis 2-7Buffalo 6-4Arizona 6-3Miami 5-4New England 6-4LOSSES (Favre's performance)Oakland Raiders 2-7 (2 ints, 0 TDs)San Diego 4-5 (2 ints with 3 TDs)New England 6-4 (1 int, 1 TD)Combined opponent record 40-53. Winning percentage is 43%. Four of the Jets first 10 opponents make up four out of five of the worst teams in the entire NFL.If you factor in the schedule, Rodgers is playing much better than Favre, given that they have relatively equal passer ratings.

Hands down the best post of this mostly useless, 3rd grade mentality thread.

 

[Sabertooth]

Let's check the stats and throw Pennington into the mix:Favre through 10 games:2237 yards, 18 TDs, 12 ints, 93 passer ratingPennington through 9 games:2200 yards, 8 TDs, 5 ints, 92.6 passer ratingRodgers through 9 games (and a tougher schedule than either team):2124 yards, 13 Tds, 5 ints, 93.3 passer ratingPace for a 16 game season:Favre - 3579 yards, 28.8 TDs, 19.2 ints, 92.6 ratingPennington - 3911 yards, 14.2 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93 ratingRodgers - 3776 yards, 23.1 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93.3 ratingPro Football Prospectus had the Jets schedule as very easy, I think 30th this year, Miami was in the low 20s and Green Bay's schedule was I think 12-14th.According to Football Outsiders DVOA rankings, Green Bay is currently the 7th best team in the NFL, the Jets are 13th and Miami is 15th.The Packers ScheduleWINSIndy 5-4Seattle 2-7Minny 5-4Detroit 0-9LOSSES (Rodgers performance)Tennessee 9-0 (1 int threw for 314 yards on road)Minny 5-4 (0 ints)Atlanta 6-3 (1 int, 313 yards, 3 TDs)Tampa Bay 6-3 (3 ints, 2 TDs - his only truly poor game)Dallas 5-4 (0 ints, 290 yards)Combined record opponent record is 43-38 and that includes a winless team. Winning percentage is 53%, with 6 out of 9 games vs. teams with winning records.They have beaten Indianapolis and Minny, two playoff-caliber teams, and also beaten Seattle and Detroit, two poor teams. Green Bay came closer than any other team to beating Tennessee. They lost on the road to a playoff team, Tampa, lost at home to a playoff team Atlanta, and lost to an at-the-time full-strength Dallas team. I see no reason to have any issue with how the team has done, especially given the injuries to the defense, poor O-line play and Ryan Grant's being injured to start the season.Who have the Jets played you ask? (having played 10 games now)WINSCincinnati 1-8Kansas City 2-7 (almost lost to a 2-7 team as Favre threw 3 ints, 28-24 final)St. Louis 2-7Buffalo 6-4Arizona 6-3Miami 5-4New England 6-4LOSSES (Favre's performance)Oakland Raiders 2-7 (2 ints, 0 TDs)San Diego 4-5 (2 ints with 3 TDs)New England 6-4 (1 int, 1 TD)Combined opponent record 40-53. Winning percentage is 43%. Four of the Jets first 10 opponents make up four out of five of the worst teams in the entire NFL.If you factor in the schedule, Rodgers is playing much better than Favre, given that they have relatively equal passer ratings.

Hands down the best post of this mostly useless, 3rd grade mentality thread.

 

[The Kerminator]

Let's check the stats and throw Pennington into the mix:Favre through 10 games:2237 yards, 18 TDs, 12 ints, 93 passer ratingPennington through 9 games:2200 yards, 8 TDs, 5 ints, 92.6 passer ratingRodgers through 9 games (and a tougher schedule than either team):2124 yards, 13 Tds, 5 ints, 93.3 passer ratingPace for a 16 game season:Favre - 3579 yards, 28.8 TDs, 19.2 ints, 92.6 ratingPennington - 3911 yards, 14.2 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93 ratingRodgers - 3776 yards, 23.1 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93.3 ratingPro Football Prospectus had the Jets schedule as very easy, I think 30th this year, Miami was in the low 20s and Green Bay's schedule was I think 12-14th.According to Football Outsiders DVOA rankings, Green Bay is currently the 7th best team in the NFL, the Jets are 13th and Miami is 15th.The Packers ScheduleWINSIndy 5-4Seattle 2-7Minny 5-4Detroit 0-9LOSSES (Rodgers performance)Tennessee 9-0 (1 int threw for 314 yards on road)Minny 5-4 (0 ints)Atlanta 6-3 (1 int, 313 yards, 3 TDs)Tampa Bay 6-3 (3 ints, 2 TDs - his only truly poor game)Dallas 5-4 (0 ints, 290 yards)Combined record opponent record is 43-38 and that includes a winless team. Winning percentage is 53%, with 6 out of 9 games vs. teams with winning records.They have beaten Indianapolis and Minny, two playoff-caliber teams, and also beaten Seattle and Detroit, two poor teams. Green Bay came closer than any other team to beating Tennessee. They lost on the road to a playoff team, Tampa, lost at home to a playoff team Atlanta, and lost to an at-the-time full-strength Dallas team. I see no reason to have any issue with how the team has done, especially given the injuries to the defense, poor O-line play and Ryan Grant's being injured to start the season.Who have the Jets played you ask? (having played 10 games now)WINSCincinnati 1-8Kansas City 2-7 (almost lost to a 2-7 team as Favre threw 3 ints, 28-24 final)St. Louis 2-7Buffalo 6-4Arizona 6-3Miami 5-4New England 6-4LOSSES (Favre's performance)Oakland Raiders 2-7 (2 ints, 0 TDs)San Diego 4-5 (2 ints with 3 TDs)New England 6-4 (1 int, 1 TD)Combined opponent record 40-53. Winning percentage is 43%. Four of the Jets first 10 opponents make up four out of five of the worst teams in the entire NFL.If you factor in the schedule, Rodgers is playing much better than Favre, given that they have relatively equal passer ratings.

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to look this up. This should put an end to this discussion.

 

[Sabertooth]

Let's check the stats and throw Pennington into the mix:Favre through 10 games:2237 yards, 18 TDs, 12 ints, 93 passer ratingPennington through 9 games:2200 yards, 8 TDs, 5 ints, 92.6 passer ratingRodgers through 9 games (and a tougher schedule than either team):2124 yards, 13 Tds, 5 ints, 93.3 passer ratingPace for a 16 game season:Favre - 3579 yards, 28.8 TDs, 19.2 ints, 92.6 ratingPennington - 3911 yards, 14.2 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93 ratingRodgers - 3776 yards, 23.1 TDs, 8.9 ints, 93.3 ratingPro Football Prospectus had the Jets schedule as very easy, I think 30th this year, Miami was in the low 20s and Green Bay's schedule was I think 12-14th.According to Football Outsiders DVOA rankings, Green Bay is currently the 7th best team in the NFL, the Jets are 13th and Miami is 15th.The Packers ScheduleWINSIndy 5-4Seattle 2-7Minny 5-4Detroit 0-9LOSSES (Rodgers performance)Tennessee 9-0 (1 int threw for 314 yards on road)Minny 5-4 (0 ints)Atlanta 6-3 (1 int, 313 yards, 3 TDs)Tampa Bay 6-3 (3 ints, 2 TDs - his only truly poor game)Dallas 5-4 (0 ints, 290 yards)Combined record opponent record is 43-38 and that includes a winless team. Winning percentage is 53%, with 6 out of 9 games vs. teams with winning records.They have beaten Indianapolis and Minny, two playoff-caliber teams, and also beaten Seattle and Detroit, two poor teams. Green Bay came closer than any other team to beating Tennessee. They lost on the road to a playoff team, Tampa, lost at home to a playoff team Atlanta, and lost to an at-the-time full-strength Dallas team. I see no reason to have any issue with how the team has done, especially given the injuries to the defense, poor O-line play and Ryan Grant's being injured to start the season.Who have the Jets played you ask? (having played 10 games now)WINSCincinnati 1-8Kansas City 2-7 (almost lost to a 2-7 team as Favre threw 3 ints, 28-24 final)St. Louis 2-7Buffalo 6-4Arizona 6-3Miami 5-4New England 6-4LOSSES (Favre's performance)Oakland Raiders 2-7 (2 ints, 0 TDs)San Diego 4-5 (2 ints with 3 TDs)New England 6-4 (1 int, 1 TD)Combined opponent record 40-53. Winning percentage is 43%. Four of the Jets first 10 opponents make up four out of five of the worst teams in the entire NFL.If you factor in the schedule, Rodgers is playing much better than Favre, given that they have relatively equal passer ratings.

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to look this up. This should put an end to this discussion.

You'd think.

 

[hauser42]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.

There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.

Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

 

[Sleeperz]

Hell try looking at what some of the other great QB's past and present have done in their first season as a starter. Not so great to say the least.

I dunno about that Sleeperz. I think the first full seasons of great QB's like Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady & now, possibly Matt Ryan, have all been pretty darn good.

Rodgers in his first year looks terrific compared to some of the elite QB's when they were first at the helm.

There's no way in Hades that would I say Rodgers 1st year looks terrific compared to the 1st year of the above mentioned elite QB's. All of the 1st full years of the above mentioned elite QB's, makes Rodgers 1st full year look more like some scrub hack back-up QB's 1st year. To me, the argument made here, was neither strong, nor convincing.

Scrub hack back-up's 1st year (averaged over the full season):3761 yards, 24 TDs, 10 IntsMatt Ryan (averaged over the full season):3454 yards, 16 Tds, 10 IntsJoe Montana 1981:3565 yards, 19 Tds, 12 IntsTom Brady 2002 actual 2nd year arguably):3764 yards, 28 Tds, 14 IntsPeyton Manning 1998:3739 Yards, 26 Tds, 28 IntsCarson Palmer 2005:3836 Yards, 32 Tds, 12 IntsJohn Elway 1985:3891 Yards, 22 Tds, 23 IntsDan Marino = UntouchableAside from the great Dan Marino, I don't see much of a difference between the numbers. There is still a good handful of other QB's that he has outperformed in his first year thus far, just like I stated in my original post. I am not sure what you consider strong or convincing, but you did help me prove my point in your argument. Thank you.Now, in no way am I saying that Rodgers is going to become the next great QB of our decade. But, you cant ignore the facts. The numbers are there in black and white. Only time will tell just how good he will be in the future. He is far from a scrub in my eyes.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

So, fans who started from the early 90's to mid 90's are "band wagon jumpers" if they have a little distaste for how current things are going in Green Bay? So, true fans cannot be true fans unless they never question the motives of the front office? So, fans of any team should sit idly by if the front office doesn't treat the players or star players that brought the fans there in the first place in a manner they themselves think is best? I tell you what, I am a Green Bay Packers fan, lived in Green Bay for nearly 10 years during the Favre era and I am now a luke warm Packers fan. I will be a die hard Packers fan when Thompson is out of the front office. So what?

 

[Phase of the Game]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

 

[sho nuff]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

 

[Phase of the Game]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

And I would say that someone who can't name 10 starters is still a diehard fan. My wife is diehard Packer fan and I doubt she can name name 10 starters. There isn't a way to quantify what a diehard fan is. It is about the excitement and support a fan brings on game day in addition to dealing with the bad times. There are thousands of those types at every college and pro game each weekend and they consider themselves diehard fans. Good for them.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

what if those same people have a packers mailbox, wear packers clothes all day on sundays, have the same two families over to watch the games every weekend, and go to lambeau once every other year?Are they allowed to be die hard fans? Please let me know so I can tell my Aunt and her husband whether or not she has to study to be able to name a couple more starters.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I just told my wife she isn't considered a diehard Packer fan and she stated..."who are the tools that said that?"

 

[sho nuff]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

And I would say that someone who can't name 10 starters is still a diehard fan. My wife is diehard Packer fan and I doubt she can name name 10 starters. There isn't a way to quantify what a diehard fan is. It is about the excitement and support a fan brings on game day in addition to dealing with the bad times. There are thousands of those types at every college and pro game each weekend and they consider themselves diehard fans. Good for them.

I define die hard a bit different. And those who deal with the bad times, don't abandon the team to wear Jets stuff instead of Packer things. Thats kind of the point.

 

[sho nuff]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

what if those same people have a packers mailbox, wear packers clothes all day on sundays, have the same two families over to watch the games every weekend, and go to lambeau once every other year?Are they allowed to be die hard fans? Please let me know so I can tell my Aunt and her husband whether or not she has to study to be able to name a couple more starters.

I would think that people who have all those things and watch all the games probably know at least 10 starters and are not just buying up Jets things.Some of you just like to keep going on and on without seeing what the actual point was.

 

[sho nuff]

I just told my wife she isn't considered a diehard Packer fan and she stated..."who are the tools that said that?"

Just because you doubt she can name 10 starters does not make it so.My wife is not a die hard, she follows the team because I do...but I would think even she could name 10 starters right now. And she watched all of 5 minutes of the game yesterday.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

what if those same people have a packers mailbox, wear packers clothes all day on sundays, have the same two families over to watch the games every weekend, and go to lambeau once every other year?Are they allowed to be die hard fans? Please let me know so I can tell my Aunt and her husband whether or not she has to study to be able to name a couple more starters.

Some of you just like to keep going on and on without seeing what the actual point was.

 

[sho nuff]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

what if those same people have a packers mailbox, wear packers clothes all day on sundays, have the same two families over to watch the games every weekend, and go to lambeau once every other year?Are they allowed to be die hard fans? Please let me know so I can tell my Aunt and her husband whether or not she has to study to be able to name a couple more starters.

Some of you just like to keep going on and on without seeing what the actual point was.

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Here's to hoping the O-line can keep it up this week in N.O. The revived running game, should it continue, should get the inordinant pass rush pressure off of Rodgers and allow him to operate even more efficiently, though his numbers have been nothing short of a success so far. Really looking forward to his continued growth. The running game coupled with a more efficient passing game ought to provide the defense some of the relief it needs as well.

N.O. will be an interesting game. They have a high powered offense, but they do play somewhat to the Packers defensive strength. Also, depending on the Commissioner this week they may find their defense in a bit of a pickle. I heard yesterday on one of the postgame shows that Goodell intends to address the discipline, if any, this week. Worst case scenario for N.O. means little pass rush and a gutting of the run D.

The Packers are playing very competitive ball right now and have been for two months. Had one or both of the Tenn and Vikings games gone the other way, and they might have as they were close, the Packers would be on a heck of a run right now. No real shame in losing two very competitive road games to an excellent and a good team, but now there is little room for slipping up.

I did not see yesterday's game except on highlights, how did Clifton look?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

 

[sho nuff]

Here's to hoping the O-line can keep it up this week in N.O. The revived running game, should it continue, should get the inordinant pass rush pressure off of Rodgers and allow him to operate even more efficiently, though his numbers have been nothing short of a success so far. Really looking forward to his continued growth. The running game coupled with a more efficient passing game ought to provide the defense some of the relief it needs as well. N.O. will be an interesting game. They have a high powered offense, but they do play somewhat to the Packers defensive strength. Also, depending on the Commissioner this week they may find their defense in a bit of a pickle. I heard yesterday on one of the postgame shows that Goodell intends to address the discipline, if any, this week. Worst case scenario for N.O. means little pass rush and a gutting of the run D. The Packers are playing very competitive ball right now and have been for two months. Had one or both of the Tenn and Vikings games gone the other way, and they might have as they were close, the Packers would be on a heck of a run right now. No real shame in losing two very competitive road games to an excellent and a good team, but now there is little room for slipping up.I did not see yesterday's game except on highlights, how did Clifton look?

Reggie Bush possibly back could be interesting out of the backfield. I thought they looked to Forte more with Hawk covering him, though, it was also because no WR or TE was open with the Packers coverage.The whole line looked good. There was one run where Clifton and Colledge both got pushed back into Grant near the goalline. But overall I did not see anything even near the crapfest that was the Oline last week.

 

[sho nuff]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

Thankfully, the decision was not made with just this year in mind. I think many realize that.I think many also realize, while there were not many changes, the opponents changed and other players have also not played up to expectations. A few other injuries play into it too, and Rodgers has done better than actually expected. I think Rodgers play right now is vindicating TT a bit. A dropoff was expected by nearly everyone in this. I think my preseason prediction was something along the lines of 10-6 this year. I doubt they get to that, but I don't think it will be that far off.

 

[Jeremy]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move. The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

 

[pack66]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

+1

 

[renesauz]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

+1

 

[Mr.Pack]

The Packers haven't lost because of Rodgers, they wouldn't have won those games with Favre either. Favre isn't the one out there tackling or blocking, both which have been shoddy as hell this year.

It's not that difficult to figure out here.

Rodgers has played well most of the time, but not so bad as to cost them a game that Favre would have won.

I keep hearing the 13-3 last year talk and this and that. Does anyone think that maybe, JUST maybe they weren't as good as that record last year and that everything lined up perfectly for them last year, especially injurywise, of which they had no major injuries, or many minor injuries at that?

Give this topic a rest, time to move on.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The Packers haven't lost because of Rodgers, they wouldn't have won those games with Favre either. Favre isn't the one out there tackling or blocking, both which have been shoddy as hell this year.

But you have to admit that Rodgers play against the Titans and Vikings did hurt the team and if he had played better the Packers may have won those games. Rodgers admitted his decison making against the Titans was poor especially in the redzone. Against the Vikings they converted only one third down attempt and he did hold the ball too long at times.http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/articl...2181/1989/GPG02

Rodgers, McCarthy shrug off quarterback's struggles

By Rob Demovsky

rdemovsk@greenbaypressgazette.com

No one — not even coach Mike McCarthy or Aaron Rodgers himself — figured Rodgers’ first season as the Green Bay Packers’ starting quarterback would come off without any bumps in the road.

So, after two consecutive games in which Rodgers has struggled, the coach and the player have chalked it up to typical growing pains of a first-year starter.

“You always want to stay on the positive path, but I think we’re naive to think that we weren’t going to hit bumps in the road,” McCarthy said Wednesday.

“I think every experience that he’s had, both positive and negative, it’s important for us to continue to build off them. The negative things that happened in the Minnesota game, we need to flip them into positives.”

Two weeks ago in an overtime loss at Tennessee, Rodgers made some questionable decisions in the red zone that contributed to the Packers getting only one touchdown in four trips inside the Titans’ 20-yard line.

Last week in a one-point loss at Minnesota, Rodgers had trouble handing the Vikings’ pass rush, was sacked four times and had two safeties called against him.

After throwing 12 touchdowns in his first seven games, he has just one in his last two. He has completed just 55.2 percent of his passes in those two games, down from his season average of 63.2 percent. His passer ratings of 76.7 against the Titans and 72.9 against the Vikings are among his three lowest marks of the season. The offense managed only one touchdown in each of those games.

“You don’t want those to happen, but you expect those in your first year as a starter because you kind of establish your identity in different parts of the season,” Rodgers said. “Teams are going to make adjustments, not only within a game, but from game to game. They’re going to watch previous film and see how they were attacked and see how they were effective and try and duplicate it. It’s a copy-cat league. Blitzes or schemes that may have worked one week or didn’t work are going to be thrown out or put in by different teams.”

Perhaps all the practice time Rodgers missed following the shoulder injury has caught up to him. In the weeks leading up to the three games that followed his injury — against Atlanta, Seattle and Indianapolis — Rodgers either did not throw at all or was extremely limited in practice. He threw, but on a pitch count, the last two weeks.

Rodgers was listed as limited on Wednesday’s practice report, but McCarthy said he participated in “90, 95 percent of the practice” — the most he has practiced since his shoulder injury.

“I think missing practice doesn’t help anybody,” McCarthy said. “The first thing in my experience for quarterbacks that goes is your footwork is not as sharp as it can be, and your timing can be off. This is no excuse. He’s played well when he didn’t practice, and he didn’t have his best games when he didn’t practice. You can do with that what you want. … I think it definitely helps when everybody practices, especially the quarterback position.”

The missed practice time may have been a factor, especially early in the Vikings’ game. On a third-and-7 play from the Packers’ 18-yard line during the first series, Rodgers and receiver Jordy Nelson got crossed up. Nelson was wide open but ran a different route than what Rodgers expected, and Rodgers missed him and threw incomplete.

“If you’re not working on the fundamentals every day, there’s potential for those to drop off a little bit,” Rodgers said. “I’m going to continue to work hard and as I get to do more in practice, I don’t expect that to be an issue at all.”

Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith said he did not see a significant difference in Rodgers when he compared film from his early season games to the last two performances during his preparation for Sunday’s game at Lambeau Field.

“I think most quarterbacks go through rough spots just in general,” Smith said in a conference call with reporters who cover the Packers. “It’s hard to play perfect ball each week. You have to give the defenses some credit, so I think that’s just a normal part of it.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

All he wrote is that Favre was the only major change from a personnel standpoint.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I keep hearing the 13-3 last year talk and this and that. Does anyone think that maybe, JUST maybe they weren't as good as that record last year and that everything lined up perfectly for them last year, especially injurywise, of which they had no major injuries, or many minor injuries at that?

Kinda makes you wonder what these guys think about the Cowboys' meltdown this year?Even before Romo got hurt, the 'boys were not the same team they were last season. I guess Julius Jones really was the lynchpin of that team!

 

[Phase of the Game]

I keep hearing the 13-3 last year talk and this and that. Does anyone think that maybe, JUST maybe they weren't as good as that record last year and that everything lined up perfectly for them last year, especially injurywise, of which they had no major injuries, or many minor injuries at that?

Kinda makes you wonder what these guys think about the Cowboys' meltdown this year?Even before Romo got hurt, the 'boys were not the same team they were last season. I guess Julius Jones really was the lynchpin of that team!

2008 CowboysRomo as the starter 5-2Without Romo 1-2

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

All he wrote is that Favre was the only major change from a personnel standpoint.

Yes, you did. But the implication in saying there have been no major changes except the QB is that the Packers haven't been as good because of the QB change. The QB change has not hurt the Packers at all.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

All he wrote is that Favre was the only major change from a personnel standpoint.

The QB change has not hurt the Packers at all.

A good arguement can be made that had Rodgers played better against the Vikings and Titans they would have won. Did you watch both of those games? I suggest you read the article a few posts above about Rodgers struggles against the Titans.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

All he wrote is that Favre was the only major change from a personnel standpoint.

Yes, you did.

I DIDN'T WRITE IT!!!!

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

All he wrote is that Favre was the only major change from a personnel standpoint.

Yes, you did.

I DIDN'T WRITE IT!!!!

Oops. HE did. Fixed.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

All he wrote is that Favre was the only major change from a personnel standpoint.

The QB change has not hurt the Packers at all.

A good arguement can be made that had Rodgers played better against the Vikings and Titans they would have won. Did you watch both of those games? I suggest you read the article a few posts above about Rodgers struggles against the Titans.

Over the course of the entire season, Rodgers has played every bit as good as Favre has, if not better.

 

[Ozymandias]

Bears 26 Packers 0

Favre 15/29, 170 yards, 2 ints.

Saints 34 Packers 27

Favre 31/55, 340, 3 tds, 1 int.

Eagles 31 Packers 9

Favre 22/44, 205, 2 ints

Rams 23 Packers 20

Favre 22/39, 220, 1 td

Bills 24 Packers 10

Favre 28/47, 287, 1 td, 2 ints

These scores are from the first half of 2006. Brett Favre has been a superlative qb, and deservedly will go into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. But just because he is that, there is no need to romanticize him as if he never made mistakes, and never made mistakes which cost the Packers some games. The Packers caught a lot of breaks last year, which gave them an excellent record. It would probably have been hard to duplicate this year, whether Favre was there or not. Aaron Rodgers has played well; he is the future.

 

[hauser42]

This thread will go on all season. You have a very dedicated group of fans that are split on what one of the oldest teams in the NFL teams should have done with one of its greatest players of all itme.There are families and friends that are split on this issue. Last Thurs my brother in law and sister started to prance around about how the Brett and the Jets were doing. They have even bought Jet items and they are not even Favre items. I ask the question what are you going to do when Brett retires from the NFL and you have Jets items?? Will you stay a Jet fan or come back to the Packers?? I have stopped discussing this issue with them as they can not name me 10 starters on the current Packer team without looking them up, even after doing this a couple of times.Packer fan base has been growing since the turn around in the 90s, now is the time we will see who the diehards are and who are the band wagon jumpers.

There are many people that call themselves diehard Packer fans that can't name 10 starters on the current team.It is possible to question the moves management make and still be a diehard fan.

Where did he say you cannot question management and still be a diehard fan. There is a difference in questioning management and abandoning the team for another team because a certain player was traded there.And I would say that someone who cannot name 10 starters is not a diehard, unless those many people are just those that suffer from memory loss.

what if those same people have a packers mailbox, wear packers clothes all day on sundays, have the same two families over to watch the games every weekend, and go to lambeau once every other year?Are they allowed to be die hard fans? Please let me know so I can tell my Aunt and her husband whether or not she has to study to be able to name a couple more starters.

Some of you just like to keep going on and on without seeing what the actual point was.

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

Maybe my use of diehard is a little over the top. We all define level of being a fan differently. Guess because I think of the people that I talk football with have a great amount of knowledge of the whole league and not just the Packers.There is a large group of Packer fans that became fans or bigger fans during the 90s. You have the wifes that started to watch with husband, fans that use to not care because they did not want to watch a loosing team, and you have a younger generation that till this year only knew one starting QB in Green Bay. IMO most of these people are havnig a tough time adjusting to the new Packers. Their hero is gone and all that they stood for has left the building, over time about these fans will either go away or jump on the Rodgers wagon. This group most likely doesn't follow much football besides the Packers and doesnt care how the NFL works and that teams need to rebuild from time to time. They think the Packers should win every game and be in the Super Bowl almost every year.

 

[sho nuff]

Whatever...Im not going to get into a big drawn out bunch of crap over something so little like this with you or phase today. You all can enjoy trying to again pile on.

But its clear in this thread again your opinions are in the minority of fans on this board.

I think the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 too.after a little more time, do you think they would have done the same?

If the pack doesnt make the playoffs after going 13-3 with very few changes made and in a weak division and the Jets make the playoffs after having a crappy year last year I think it will be pretty hard to argue that the Packers made the right decision for this year.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and so do the Jets, I will agree to call it a wash from a football standpoint, but being the wrong move out of respect to a team legend.

If the Pack makes the playoffs and the Jets dont, well then I would say TT is vindicated.

It really is that simple. The team rodgers inherited was a playoff team. Not because of guessing, hope, speculation, etc. They had good players that had been there before and a weak division.

It's not that simple at all. Every year is different in the NFL. The schedule changes, players get injured, or are ineffective because of playing with injuries. A close game that went our way last year, maybe doesn't go our way this year. Players improve or decline from year to year. Anyone who's watched all the Packers' games knows that there are many reasons the Packers have struggled sometimes this year, and the QB position isn't really one of them. Until this week we've been getting dominated in the trenches, and you can't win with any QB when that happens. Also, the Jets have rebuilt their offensive line and made improvements on defense as well. Arguably, the addition of Favre isn't even their most important offseason move.

The sports media likes to sell that the QB is the only player on the field that affects wins and losses, but knowledgable football fans know better.

If Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year, then what happened in the two previous years?

Has anyone stated that Favre was the sole reason for the 13-3 record last year?

I know I never did.All I have pointed out was that he was the only major change from last year to this year.

You are WAY off there. Ryan Grant held out and has not played anywhere near as good as he did last year. The same with the offensive line. The defense is a sieve this year and they have been hammered with injuries. This is not even close to the same team as last year.

All he wrote is that Favre was the only major change from a personnel standpoint.

The QB change has not hurt the Packers at all.

A good arguement can be made that had Rodgers played better against the Vikings and Titans they would have won. Did you watch both of those games? I suggest you read the article a few posts above about Rodgers struggles against the Titans.

And an even better argument can be made that nobody has a clue how Favre would have played in those games or others.Sure, if he plays better they could have won.

Of course, had other phases of the game played better they could have won as well.