How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (2 Viewers)

[Chicago Hooligan]

Started 253 consecutive games (275 including playoffs), the Packers franchise record, longest stretch ever by an NFL quarterback, and league's second-longest streak ever recorded among all positionsHolds virtually every significant NFL career passing record, including touchdown passes (442), completions (5,377), attempts (8,758) and yards (61,655), plus most wins (160) as a starting QB.

He also holds the records for most INTs, most losses, and probably most sacks. Most of these records came as a result of him playing a huge number of games, not because he performed at a high level the entire time. There's a reason Favre rarely gets mentioned in the "who's the best QB of all time?" discussion.

well most of this post is dead wrong

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

keep 'em coming tho

 

[phthalatemagic]

One of the key measures for quarterbacks is won-loss records. That does have something to do with Favre and Rodgers.

2008 Favre is 8-3 and Rodgers is 5-6. That is a fact.

so the 2008 Kerry Collins (10-1) is better than Peyton Manning (7-4) or Brett Favre (8-3) or Kurt Warner (7-4) then ?

I didn't write that. Anyone that knows anything about football knows that ONE of the ways they are measured is won-loss records. Nice try.Now Colin Cowherd is talking about how important great QBs are and how they affect every aspect of a team including confidence and overall play including the defense.

Well, either you implied it or you had no point. Which is it?

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

I don't expect you to be able to explain yourself. You spit out ######ed team stats to prove a horrible point about an individual, and that's as far as you go. Over and over and over again. You should pick up something easier, like tennis.

And you come in here fishing all the time. Do you or don't you acknowledge that one of the key measuring points to a QBs career is their winning percentage.

You gonna answer my question or not?

Guess that's a no. If I were you, I'd spend more time at www.tennisguys.com, becuase you know jacksquat about football.

 

[sho nuff]

The early line has the O/U for sho nuff posts in this thread tomorrow at 28.

Depends...whats the over under on how many posts you and phase make that don't really have anything to do with Favre or Rodgers (like phase with posting the win/loss record?)Anyway...after the next few minutes...you won't see me much today.Im helping to care for my 4 year old and 10 month old with stomach viruses and fighting one of myself.Id blame the game last night for the way I feel, but this started well before kickoff.

One of the key measures for quarterbacks is won-loss records. That does have something to do with Favre and Rodgers.2008 Favre is 8-3 and Rodgers is 5-6. That is a fact.

You realize its the key measure of a "TEAM" not an individual player right?

 

[sho nuff]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

People said all offseason that the team would probably be better "THIS YEAR" with Favre. I said as much over and over during the whole will they trade him deal.

That is why it was a mistake for TT to make the decison to move on without Favre this year when he could have waited at least one more year to turn things over to Rodgers.

IMO, that is yet to be determined.Nobody can say for sure that they would really be any better with Favre this year. And then what? What if Rodgers decided not to resign and then you lose him too...and Brohm and Flynn suck...and even with Favre they don't win it all. Where are they then.TT made the decision for more than just this season.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Top 10 QBs of All Time

Marv Levy, Art Rooney Jr., Zeke Bratkowski, Ken Meyer, Larry Kennan, James Harris and **** Haley helped ESPN.com evaluate the best quarterbacks in NFL history. ESPN.com weighed their contributions, balancing rankings with anecdotal evidence, to create the following list.

OVERALL

1. Johnny Unitas

2. Joe Montana

3. Tom Brady

4. Dan Marino

5. Peyton Manning

6. John Elway

7. Terry Bradshaw

8. Brett Favre

9. Otto Graham

10. Dan Fouts

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...103_The+definit

http://www.frantarkenton.com/?p=8

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...aw.3a0e2fd.html

http://www.samepagesports.com/brett-favre-...ck-of-all-time/

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3037656

 

[sho nuff]

One of the key measures for quarterbacks is won-loss records. That does have something to do with Favre and Rodgers.

2008 Favre is 8-3 and Rodgers is 5-6. That is a fact.

so the 2008 Kerry Collins (10-1) is better than Peyton Manning (7-4) or Brett Favre (8-3) or Kurt Warner (7-4) then ?

I didn't write that. Anyone that knows anything about football knows that ONE of the ways they are measured is won-loss records. Nice try.Now Colin Cowherd is talking about how important great QBs are and how they affect every aspect of a team including confidence and overall play including the defense.

Well, if Cowherd said it, it must be true.Ever know how much football Cowherd has played? Hah.

He is one of the biggest idiots on the radio.

And if anyone thinks last night's defense would have been better with Favre at QB...they are completely brain dead.

 

[sho nuff]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

Hmmmm, so you're saying Favre could have stopped the Saints Offense single handedly?Damn, we do need Favre back!

Well, since the best way to stop a good offense is to keep them off them field, basically.... yes.

Check the time of posession in the first half. The check the scoreboard.I bet somehow Brett would have then made them fumble the opening kickoff of the 2nd half too and the Packers would not have been down by 10.

 

[sho nuff]

I did notice that Favre and the Jets offense controlled the clock against the Titans for over 40 minutes. I wonder if that made the Jets defense more effective? That sure seems like an example of a great QB making the defense better.

Then I guess you did not notice how the Titans were going three and out giving Favre the ball back.Or you did not notice the TOP last night as the Packers were controlling the clock in the first half and the defense still gave up 24 points in the first half...and another 7 on the opening drive of the 2nd half.

 

[sho nuff]

Started 253 consecutive games (275 including playoffs), the Packers franchise record, longest stretch ever by an NFL quarterback, and league's second-longest streak ever recorded among all positionsHolds virtually every significant NFL career passing record, including touchdown passes (442), completions (5,377), attempts (8,758) and yards (61,655), plus most wins (160) as a starting QB.

There's a reason Favre rarely gets mentioned in the "who's the best QB of all time?" discussion.

He is right.There is a reason why even I never put him as best ever over a guy like Montana and have said he fits somewhere just after that in the top 5.And I said these things before he ever retired too.

 

[sho nuff]

Top 10 QBs of All Time

Marv Levy, Art Rooney Jr., Zeke Bratkowski, Ken Meyer, Larry Kennan, James Harris and **** Haley helped ESPN.com evaluate the best quarterbacks in NFL history. ESPN.com weighed their contributions, balancing rankings with anecdotal evidence, to create the following list.

OVERALL

1. Johnny Unitas

2. Joe Montana

3. Tom Brady

4. Dan Marino

5. Peyton Manning

6. John Elway

7. Terry Bradshaw

8. Brett Favre

9. Otto Graham

10. Dan Fouts

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...103_The+definit

http://www.frantarkenton.com/?p=8

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...aw.3a0e2fd.html

http://www.samepagesports.com/brett-favre-...ck-of-all-time/

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3037656

SO that list agrees he is not the best...thanks.

 

[Pipes]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

Hmmmm, so you're saying Favre could have stopped the Saints Offense single handedly?Damn, we do need Favre back!

Well, since the best way to stop a good offense is to keep them off them field, basically.... yes.

Check the time of posession in the first half. The check the scoreboard.I bet somehow Brett would have then made them fumble the opening kickoff of the 2nd half too and the Packers would not have been down by 10.

Green Bay went on 2 long time consuming drives in the 1st half (giving the defense plenty of time to rest) yet the Saints gashed the defense for 24 points in the 1st half. I guess Rodgers should have taken more time to score to keep the defense off the field even longer.

 

[sho nuff]

I have no idea how anyone who watched last night's game cannot see that the defense was getting shredded...even the strength of the defense (the secondary).

IMO, it looked as if they were dropping back more and staying out of their usual press coverage. They were not getting the bump they usually do...and NO was scheming to get guys in motion and in bunches to avoid the bump.

This is no excuse for how Rodgers started the 2nd half...or a few of the misses he had. He did play poorly.

But even with a better performance, the defense was not stopping anything yesterday.

Huge play to me...3rd and 15 and the DBs all dropped off and allowed a completion right near the sticks. They end up short but get the 1st down on 4th and short.

 

[CalBear]

Top 10 QBs of All TimeMarv Levy, Art Rooney Jr., Zeke Bratkowski, Ken Meyer, Larry Kennan, James Harris and **** Haley helped ESPN.com evaluate the best quarterbacks in NFL history. ESPN.com weighed their contributions, balancing rankings with anecdotal evidence, to create the following list. OVERALL...8. Brett Favre

Yes, and? He's generally considered better than Dan Fouts. Woo hoo. How many first place votes did he get? (Zero.)

 

[Mr.Pack]

I have no idea how anyone who watched last night's game cannot see that the defense was getting shredded...even the strength of the defense (the secondary).IMO, it looked as if they were dropping back more and staying out of their usual press coverage. They were not getting the bump they usually do...and NO was scheming to get guys in motion and in bunches to avoid the bump.This is no excuse for how Rodgers started the 2nd half...or a few of the misses he had. He did play poorly.But even with a better performance, the defense was not stopping anything yesterday.Huge play to me...3rd and 15 and the DBs all dropped off and allowed a completion right near the sticks. They end up short but get the 1st down on 4th and short.

If they had Favre they would have won and would be 11-0.Get over it.

 

[Tau837]

Started 253 consecutive games (275 including playoffs), the Packers franchise record, longest stretch ever by an NFL quarterback, and league's second-longest streak ever recorded among all positionsHolds virtually every significant NFL career passing record, including touchdown passes (442), completions (5,377), attempts (8,758) and yards (61,655), plus most wins (160) as a starting QB.

He also holds the records for most INTs, most losses, and probably most sacks. Most of these records came as a result of him playing a huge number of games, not because he performed at a high level the entire time. There's a reason Favre rarely gets mentioned in the "who's the best QB of all time?" discussion.

First off, IMO most discussions about the best QB of all time begin and end with Montana and Unitas, if you're literally debating the best. On the other hand, if you are debating the top 5-10 QBs, there is no doubt Favre is in the discussion.Yes, no doubt he ranks first on the list in attempts, completions, passing yards, passing TDs, and wins due in large part to the fact that he has played the most games. But that isn't the only reason. For example, he is 42 TD passes ahead of Marino, and has played 26 more games. At the very least, that shows that he sustained performance equal to Marino's for longer. How can that be a negative?Yes, he's first in interceptions, also due in large part to the fact that he played so long. But only 5 HOF QBs have lower interception percentages (Montana, Young, Aikman, Marino, and Elway), and only Manning, Brady, and maybe Warner are active players who currently look like they could make the HOF with lower interception percentages.He is #6 in times sacked and IMO unlikely to end up at the top unless he plays beyond next season. (Elway is #1 with 56 more sacks than Favre.) Meanwhile, Favre has the 20th best career sack percentage of all time. Manning and Marino are the only QBs who were on the previously posted top 10 list that have better sack percentages.Also, people tend to focus on the compiled stats and not on the intrinsic value of a Pro Bowl to All Pro caliber QB starting every game for 17 seasons. That means in all that time his team never had to fall back to a weaker or less experienced player at QB, which can be taken advantage of by the opposing defense. In all that time, his team's players never had to adjust to a new QB in midseason. Not to mention the fact that the QB tends to be a leader and in a position to inspire his teammates to play better... and he was always there to do that. Heck, his GM never had to worry about making sure they had a good second QB until he got close to retirement. Sure, he has certainly lost some games with turnovers. But for 17 years, his teams have entered every game knowing that they had a good chance to win, due in large part to Favre (as much as it could be due to any single player).How about awards? Take the top 10 QB list that was posted earlier, and only Unitas and Graham have more than Favre's 3 1st team All Pro selections. The only player with as many AP MVP awards as Favre is Unitas; if we use the Joe Carr Trophy and UPI award before 1957, when the AP began giving NFL MVP awards, Graham also won 3. Of course, when Unitas got his awards, there were 12-16 teams, and when Graham got his, there were 7-8 teams in the AAFC (for 3 of the All Pro selections) and 12 teams in the NFL (for 4 All Pro selections and the 3 UPI MVPs). So IMO Favre's awards are arguably more meaningful, as he faced much more competition for them.Let's talk about wins and losses. Sure, he has the most of both in large part because he played so long. But consider that in 17 years as a starting QB, he has only had 1 losing season. He was at times surrounded by really good players and had a good coaching staff and front office. But all of those people and teammates turned over many times over and he was there throughout keeping the team in playoff contention, except for one losing season, which was due to a massive rebuilding effort moreso than to Favre himself.And he led his team to the playoffs repeatedly. This year will be the 12th time in his 17 seasons as a starter. And one of the 5 times his team missed was his first season in Green Bay, when he didn't play until the third game in relief, with the team 0-2 and trailing... so that season's near playoff miss was a credit to him (he was 8-5 as a starter that season).Now consider that before Favre started in Green Bay, they had made the playoffs one time in 19 years. They had won only one playoff game since Lombardi's last title in 1967. They only had 3 winning seasons over that 19 year span, with a cumulative record of 112-168-6. Compare that to Favre's Green Bay record as a starter of 160-93-0. Favre is currently tied for #5 in playoff starts, and will move to a tie for #3, tie for #2, or sole possession of #2 on that list in this year's playoffs, depending on how far the Jets advance.So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong. For now, I expect Green Bay fans to write this contrast (before Favre, with Favre, after Favre) off as a coincidence or fluke. And it probably is this year. But I do think current Green Bay fans (at least younger fans) will come to appreciate Favre more over time, when 10 years from now they have not been able to maintain the same level of success they had with him.Now a lot of this doesn't have to do with Favre vs. Rodgers. But your post needlessly minimized his substantial legacy IMO.Furthermore, this substantial legacy is a reason, in addition to putting the best QB on the field, that I thought Green Bay should have brought Favre back. Water under the bridge at this point (and yes, I know Favre brought plenty of the problems on himself, no need to rehash it).

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Just win baby.

Actually great posting!!!

 

[Big Score]

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.

For comparisons sake, QB ratings:Marino: 96.0 (1983)

Rodgers: 93.3 90.5 (2008)

Ryan: 89.9 88.3 (2008)

Montana: 88.4 (1981)

Brady: 86.5 (2001)

Palmer:77.3 (2004)

Manning: 71.2 (1998)

Seems like you just made a pretty good case for Rodgers having a decent chance to be great.

First things first. 2008 is not yet over & as we can see from above, both Rodgers & Ryans QB ratings are fluid. Best to wait until this season is over to get a true picture of their 2008 QB rating.

Second.

Don't forget, when you're comparing QB ratings from different eras, you're not really comparing apples to apples.

To clarify what I'm saying.

I'm not sure how one would adjust a QB's rating from 1981, or even 1998 & the rules those QB's played under then, to reflect what that QB's rating would be if they had been able to play with the far more favorable passing game rules of today.

Does that make sense to everyone?

 

[Chreesto]

Started 253 consecutive games (275 including playoffs), the Packers franchise record, longest stretch ever by an NFL quarterback, and league's second-longest streak ever recorded among all positionsHolds virtually every significant NFL career passing record, including touchdown passes (442), completions (5,377), attempts (8,758) and yards (61,655), plus most wins (160) as a starting QB.

He also holds the records for most INTs, most losses, and probably most sacks. Most of these records came as a result of him playing a huge number of games, not because he performed at a high level the entire time. There's a reason Favre rarely gets mentioned in the "who's the best QB of all time?" discussion.

First off, IMO most discussions about the best QB of all time begin and end with Montana and Unitas, if you're literally debating the best. On the other hand, if you are debating the top 5-10 QBs, there is no doubt Favre is in the discussion.Yes, no doubt he ranks first on the list in attempts, completions, passing yards, passing TDs, and wins due in large part to the fact that he has played the most games. But that isn't the only reason. For example, he is 42 TD passes ahead of Marino, and has played 26 more games. At the very least, that shows that he sustained performance equal to Marino's for longer. How can that be a negative?Yes, he's first in interceptions, also due in large part to the fact that he played so long. But only 5 HOF QBs have lower interception percentages (Montana, Young, Aikman, Marino, and Elway), and only Manning, Brady, and maybe Warner are active players who currently look like they could make the HOF with lower interception percentages.He is #6 in times sacked and IMO unlikely to end up at the top unless he plays beyond next season. (Elway is #1 with 56 more sacks than Favre.) Meanwhile, Favre has the 20th best career sack percentage of all time. Manning and Marino are the only QBs who were on the previously posted top 10 list that have better sack percentages.Also, people tend to focus on the compiled stats and not on the intrinsic value of a Pro Bowl to All Pro caliber QB starting every game for 17 seasons. That means in all that time his team never had to fall back to a weaker or less experienced player at QB, which can be taken advantage of by the opposing defense. In all that time, his team's players never had to adjust to a new QB in midseason. Not to mention the fact that the QB tends to be a leader and in a position to inspire his teammates to play better... and he was always there to do that. Heck, his GM never had to worry about making sure they had a good second QB until he got close to retirement. Sure, he has certainly lost some games with turnovers. But for 17 years, his teams have entered a game knowing that they had a chance in every game, due in large part to Favre (as much as it could be due to any single player).How about awards? Take the top 10 QB list that was posted earlier, and only Unitas and Graham have more than Favre's 3 1st team All Pro selections. The only player with as many AP MVP awards as Favre is Unitas; if we use the Joe Carr Trophy and UPI award before 1957, when the AP began giving NFL MVP awards, Graham also won 3. Of course, when Unitas got his awards, there were 12-16 teams, and when Graham got his, there were 7-8 teams in the AAFC (for 3 of the All Pro selections) and 12 teams in the NFL (for 4 All Pro selections and the 3 UPI MVPs). So IMO Favre's awards are arguably more meaningful, as he faced much more competition for them.Let's talk about wins and losses. Sure, he has the most of both in large part because he played so long. But consider that in 17 years as a starting QB, he has only had 1 losing season. He was at times surrounded by really good players and had a good coaching staff and front office. But all of those people and teammates turned over many times over and he was there throughout keeping the team in playoff contention, except for one losing season, which was due to a massive rebuilding effort moreso than to Favre himself.And he led his team to the playoffs repeatedly. This year will be the 12th time in his 17 seasons as a starter. And one of the 5 times his team missed was his first season in Green Bay, when he didn't play until the third game in relief, with the team 0-2 and trailing... so that season's near playoff miss was a credit to him (he was 8-5 as a starter that season).Now consider that before Favre started in Green Bay, they had made the playoffs one time in 19 years. They had won only one playoff game since Lombardi's last title in 1967. They only had 3 winning seasons over that 19 year span, with a cumulative record of 112-168-6. Compare that to Favre's Green Bay record as a starter of 160-93-0. Favre is currently tied for #5 in playoff starts, and will move to a tie for #3, tie for #2, or sole possession of #2 on that list in this year's playoffs, depending on how far the Jets advance.So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong. For now, I expect Green Bay fans to write this contrast (before Favre, with Favre, after Favre) off as a coincidence or fluke. And it probably is this year. But I do think current Green Bays (at least younger fans) will come to appreciate Favre more over time, when 10 years from now they have not been able to maintain the same level of success they had with him.Now a lot of this doesn't have to do with Favre vs. Rodgers. But your post needlessly minimized his substantial legacy IMO.Furthermore, this substantial legacy is a reason, in addition to putting the best QB on the field, that I thought Green Bay should have brought Favre back. Water under the bridge at this point (and yes, I know Favre brought plenty of the problems on himself, no need to rehash it).

Yeah this is one of the better posts I've seen on this debate. I think a lot of the GB fans who are sick of Favre have really taken their success ove the last 15 years for granted. Remember the 80s.

 

[CalBear]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

 

[Chreesto]

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.

For comparisons sake, QB ratings:Marino: 96.0 (1983)

Rodgers: 93.3 90.5 (2008)

Ryan: 89.9 88.3 (2008)

Montana: 88.4 (1981)

Brady: 86.5 (2001)

Palmer:77.3 (2004)

Manning: 71.2 (1998)

Seems like you just made a pretty good case for Rodgers having a decent chance to be great.

First things first. 2008 is not yet over & as we can see from above, both Rodgers & Ryans QB ratings are fluid. Best to wait until this season is over to get a true picture of their 2008 QB rating.

Second.

Don't forget, when you're comparing QB ratings from different eras, you're not really comparing apples to apples.

To clarify what I'm saying.

I'm not sure how one would adjust a QB's rating from 1981, or even 1998 & the rules those QB's played under then, to reflect what that QB's rating would be if they had been able to play with the far more favorable passing game rules of today.

Does that make sense to everyone?

I also think it's important to differentiate between a "first year" quarterback that has been learning the playbook and practicing for 3 years as a backup and a true rookie. Apples and Oranges in my opinion. You take a serious risk of ruining your promising young QB by throwing him to the wolves as a rookie. Conventional wisdom has held that you let them sit for a year or two. Let's not marginalize Ryan's performance this year by comparing him to Rodgers who was studying the same playbook and throwing to the same players (in practice) three years ago while Ryan was a Sophomore at Boston College.

 

[munchkin]

Nice history on Favre.

This year (and last as we know) the Packers are not a better team than the Giants with or without Brett. If you aren't going to win the SB then there is no reason to hold on to the past. It was time to move on.

PS: The Jets aren't better than the Giants with or without Favre either.

 

[JamesTheScot]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

Hmmmm, so you're saying Favre could have stopped the Saints Offense single handedly?Damn, we do need Favre back!

Well, since the best way to stop a good offense is to keep them off them field, basically.... yes.

Check the time of posession in the first half. The check the scoreboard.I bet somehow Brett would have then made them fumble the opening kickoff of the 2nd half too and the Packers would not have been down by 10.

Green Bay went on 2 long time consuming drives in the 1st half (giving the defense plenty of time to rest) yet the Saints gashed the defense for 24 points in the 1st half. I guess Rodgers should have taken more time to score to keep the defense off the field even longer.

How dare you guys actually break down game details to refute long standing, commonly accepted cliches! Heretics! To the dungeon with you!

 

[GreenNGold]

Nice history on Favre. This year (and last as we know) the Packers are not a better team than the Giants with or without Brett. If you aren't going to win the SB then there is no reason to hold on to the past. It was time to move on.PS: The Jets aren't better than the Giants with or without Favre either.

Absurd. You take your best shot each and every year. If you rule out the super bowl before the season even begins, why even put a team on the field? The Giants beat the Packers in OVERTIME last year, not exactly the type of matchup I would consider a guaranteed win for either team. You never know what is going to happen either -- you need to give yourself the best shot you have at winning and then hope everything falls your way come playoff time. Most people didn't think the Patriots could lose last year either.PS: You don't know if the Jets or Giants are better until they actually play each other, or we see how each team finishes. They are a definite possiblity for the superbowl this year. Just like we didn't know if the Giants or Patriots were better last year, until the last week of the regular season we realized they were much closer than we thought.

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

And Im waiting to see where anyone said there would be no dropoff.Prior to last night, QB was far down on the list of problems. And even last night it was not the #1 issue.And I agree...9-7 may very well win this division.

 

[Challenge Everything]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

 

[Chachi]

Anybody feel like Sho Nuff has said enuff?

Seriously take a chill pill and stop posting in this thread for a month, it's gotten to the point where I'm wondering if you have a voodoo doll of brett favre.

It's like, alright, WE GET IT, you have very strong opinions, how about letting others talk once in a while.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Anybody feel like Sho Nuff has said enuff?Seriously take a chill pill and stop posting in this thread for a month, it's gotten to the point where I'm wondering if you have a voodoo doll of brett favre.It's like, alright, WE GET IT, you have very strong opinions, how about letting others talk once in a while.

sho nuff 191xxxxx 79xxxxx 45xxxxx 24xxxxx 20

Every time I read a post, all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher's voice.

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

 

[sho nuff]

Anybody feel like Sho Nuff has said enuff?Seriously take a chill pill and stop posting in this thread for a month, it's gotten to the point where I'm wondering if you have a voodoo doll of brett favre.It's like, alright, WE GET IT, you have very strong opinions, how about letting others talk once in a while.

Thanks for that substance filled post that really was nothing more than bashing me.I appreciate you still not being able to rationally discuss the topic and just attempt to take cheap shots.Why don't you call him a bust again...that went over well.Notice not one person backed you up on that?And that several, not just me, told you it was not a very good post?Try again...but next time leave me out of it.

 

[sho nuff]

Anybody feel like Sho Nuff has said enuff?Seriously take a chill pill and stop posting in this thread for a month, it's gotten to the point where I'm wondering if you have a voodoo doll of brett favre.It's like, alright, WE GET IT, you have very strong opinions, how about letting others talk once in a while.

sho nuff 191xxxxx 79xxxxx 45xxxxx 24xxxxx 20

Every time I read a post, all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher's voice.

Maybe next time you should actually read what was said...rather than just counting posts.

 

[Chachi]

Anybody feel like Sho Nuff has said enuff?Seriously take a chill pill and stop posting in this thread for a month, it's gotten to the point where I'm wondering if you have a voodoo doll of brett favre.It's like, alright, WE GET IT, you have very strong opinions, how about letting others talk once in a while.

sho nuff 191xxxxx 79xxxxx 45xxxxx 24xxxxx 20

Every time I read a post, all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher's voice.

 

[mozzy84]

Anybody feel like Sho Nuff has said enuff?Seriously take a chill pill and stop posting in this thread for a month, it's gotten to the point where I'm wondering if you have a voodoo doll of brett favre.It's like, alright, WE GET IT, you have very strong opinions, how about letting others talk once in a while.

sho nuff 191xxxxx 79xxxxx 45xxxxx 24xxxxx 20

Every time I read a post, all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher's voice.

191

 

[Sweetness_34]

I am shocked....shonuff being a homer with no rationale.

 

[teamroc]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

People said all offseason that the team would probably be better "THIS YEAR" with Favre. I said as much over and over during the whole will they trade him deal.

That is why it was a mistake for TT to make the decison to move on without Favre this year when he could have waited at least one more year to turn things over to Rodgers.

IMO, that is yet to be determined.Nobody can say for sure that they would really be any better with Favre this year. And then what? What if Rodgers decided not to resign and then you lose him too...and Brohm and Flynn suck...and even with Favre they don't win it all. Where are they then.TT made the decision for more than just this season.

Resign? It's called franchise tag. Rodgers would have signed an extension. If he didn't, franchise his ###. They should have kepth both, clearly.

 

[parasaurolophus]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

People said all offseason that the team would probably be better "THIS YEAR" with Favre. I said as much over and over during the whole will they trade him deal.

That is why it was a mistake for TT to make the decison to move on without Favre this year when he could have waited at least one more year to turn things over to Rodgers.

IMO, that is yet to be determined.Nobody can say for sure that they would really be any better with Favre this year. And then what? What if Rodgers decided not to resign and then you lose him too...and Brohm and Flynn suck...and even with Favre they don't win it all. Where are they then.TT made the decision for more than just this season.

Resign? It's called franchise tag. Rodgers would have signed an extension. If he didn't, franchise his ###. They should have kepth both, clearly.

TT is a bum. No matter how you slice it this teams fall back is because of TT.If you blame the defense...well obviously that is TT's fault. He didnt catch on to KGB being slowed down last year. He let williams go. He drafted AJ Hawk. He draft an INJURED defensive linemen. Who is still INJURED. If you blame the Oline...points to TT. He wasnt smart enough to see that it had so many holes. If you blame the fact the packers dont have Favre anymore... Well again, that points to TT. If you blame Mike Mccarthy... Well TT hired him when he came from crappy teams as a coordinator.I blame Mccarthy and the loss of Favre. So I hate TT.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

 

[Challenge Everything]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GM's have a plan for future years but think about winning in year N. Year N+1 is the plan and who's contract is up and what prospects might be coming out in the draft and what free agents the team has. Year N is about winning and putting the best team forward. Good GM's worry about Year N with Year N+1 on their mind but not at the cost of Year N... especially when Year N-1 was a 13-3 season.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Packer front office made the right move in getting Favre out of town and let the young guy take over. Favre will be one and done in New York. He threw up a hail mary that some how no Dolphin could get to and won the game. Yesterday he threw the pick that led to the deciding score.Brett had a great season because of the cast around him and now Rodgers is reaping the same benefits this year. Rodgers will put up some solid numbers this season. The backup issue is a concern, but TT always has a plan.

 

[Sweetness_34]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GM's have a plan for future years but think about winning in year N. Year N+1 is the plan and who's contract is up and what prospects might be coming out in the draft and what free agents the team has. Year N is about winning and putting the best team forward. Good GM's worry about Year N with Year N+1 on their mind but not at the cost of Year N... especially when Year N-1 was a 13-3 season.

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

feeling good about a win over the rams huh

 

[thatguy]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GM's have a plan for future years but think about winning in year N. Year N+1 is the plan and who's contract is up and what prospects might be coming out in the draft and what free agents the team has. Year N is about winning and putting the best team forward. Good GM's worry about Year N with Year N+1 on their mind but not at the cost of Year N... especially when Year N-1 was a 13-3 season.

This should always be true. I think Arizona this year is a good case in point. Obviously Warner is not the long term answer. He might be around another year or two, but will certainly be gone by 2011. And while the Cardinals are a pretty good team this year, I don't think many actually believe they will win the Super Bowl. But Warner gives them the best chance to win games, to make the playoffs, and so on. Even if they don't make the Super Bowl and win it, I think most will consider this season a success - even if Warner retires and the Cardinals are stuck starting Leinart next season. So, just because their chances of actually winning the Super Bowl may be slim, throwing Leinart in there instead of Warner is simply not the answer, even if there is a chance they'll be stuck starting him as early as 2009. The success they're having this season with Warner far outweighs whatever positives might have come from throwing Leinart out there every week just to watch him suck.

 

[GreenNGold]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GM's have a plan for future years but think about winning in year N. Year N+1 is the plan and who's contract is up and what prospects might be coming out in the draft and what free agents the team has. Year N is about winning and putting the best team forward. Good GM's worry about Year N with Year N+1 on their mind but not at the cost of Year N... especially when Year N-1 was a 13-3 season.

This should always be true. I think Arizona this year is a good case in point. Obviously Warner is not the long term answer. He might be around another year or two, but will certainly be gone by 2011. And while the Cardinals are a pretty good team this year, I don't think many actually believe they will win the Super Bowl. But Warner gives them the best chance to win games, to make the playoffs, and so on. Even if they don't make the Super Bowl and win it, I think most will consider this season a success - even if Warner retires and the Cardinals are stuck starting Leinart next season. So, just because their chances of actually winning the Super Bowl may be slim, throwing Leinart in there instead of Warner is simply not the answer, even if there is a chance they'll be stuck starting him as early as 2009. The success they're having this season with Warner far outweighs whatever positives might have come from throwing Leinart out there every week just to watch him suck.

Also, for sho'nuff I have heard enough of sho'nuff.

For anyone who cares, I am a lifetime Packers fan, and I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history. Already, some homers are comparing this to the Hershel Walker trade. It is that bad. Atleast the Jets get that superbowl trophies are worth more than draft picks. I don't care about all the stats in this thread that people try to make their points with -- they are all biased. The truth is, that the Packers are a Brett Favre away from being superbowl contenders -- by choice. How TT has not been fired and already run out of town by that is beyond me.

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

 

[CalBear]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

 

[teamroc]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

Huh?

 

[munchkin]

Nice history on Favre. This year (and last as we know) the Packers are not a better team than the Giants with or without Brett. If you aren't going to win the SB then there is no reason to hold on to the past. It was time to move on.PS: The Jets aren't better than the Giants with or without Favre either.

Absurd. You take your best shot each and every year. If you rule out the super bowl before the season even begins, why even put a team on the field? The Giants beat the Packers in OVERTIME last year, not exactly the type of matchup I would consider a guaranteed win for either team. You never know what is going to happen either -- you need to give yourself the best shot you have at winning and then hope everything falls your way come playoff time. Most people didn't think the Patriots could lose last year either.PS: You don't know if the Jets or Giants are better until they actually play each other, or we see how each team finishes. They are a definite possiblity for the superbowl this year. Just like we didn't know if the Giants or Patriots were better last year, until the last week of the regular season we realized they were much closer than we thought.

Yes, they lost in overtime, at home, when Favre inexplicably threw the ball to the Giants d'back. There are a lot of teams that went into this year with very little chance to win the Super Bowl and I think most fans know who they are. What I am saying is that Favre did not give the Packers an appreciably better chance at winning the Super Bowl this year than Rodgers did. The Packers team has more problems than whatever issues Rodgers is working through. Rodgers is not the main reason the team is 5-6.We may have an opportunity to see the Giants and J-E-T-S in Tampa this February to see who is the best team. If that was the case I would bet on the Giants. If Eli is hurt then that could change the outcome just as an injury to Kris Jenkins would significantly change the equation on the Jets side of the ball.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

Steve Young>Aaron Rodgers

 

[sho nuff]

I am shocked....shonuff being a homer with no rationale.

I am shocked...sweetness again got personal rather than discussing the topic.Its funny how you lay off your usual namecalling here though...afraid to get banned?

 

[sho nuff]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

People said all offseason that the team would probably be better "THIS YEAR" with Favre. I said as much over and over during the whole will they trade him deal.

That is why it was a mistake for TT to make the decison to move on without Favre this year when he could have waited at least one more year to turn things over to Rodgers.

IMO, that is yet to be determined.Nobody can say for sure that they would really be any better with Favre this year. And then what? What if Rodgers decided not to resign and then you lose him too...and Brohm and Flynn suck...and even with Favre they don't win it all. Where are they then.TT made the decision for more than just this season.

Resign? It's called franchise tag. Rodgers would have signed an extension. If he didn't, franchise his ###. They should have kepth both, clearly.

You don't have any idea what Rodgers would have done had they taken Favre back.And franchise? Are you freakin kidding? Pay a guy top 5 money without having him ever start?I am so glad some of you are not the GM of the Packers and Ted Thompson is.Some of you all would run this team into the ground way worse than Sherman did.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.