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

[sho nuff]

He didn't waffle all summer. He knew he wasn't wanted back in Green Bay.

Again, his agent and Favre knew that TT didn't want him back.

Because it appears that TT/staff did lie/misrepresent on several issues.

Ask the Jets how that is working out for them.

Yes...he did waffle all summer. He even admits as much. You can keep going on he was not wanted...but if he wanted to play, he did not have to keep telling them he was staying retired.His agent knowing that is no excuse for putting out trade feelers. A player who only wants to play for the Packers is not finding out what other trade opportunities are out there...especially in a month where it was clear if he wanted to come back he would have been welcome to do so.

Did TT and them lie? Maybe...did Brett? Maybe. But if you really want to come back to a team...calling out your boss in the media is not very wise now is it?

What would not have been an improvement over what the Jets got out of the QB position last season?

 

[sho nuff]

This quote always amuses me when sho nuff tries and convinces himself that TT and McCarthy wanted Favre back.

Favre called McCarthy on June 20 and told him that he wanted to come back.

"When he picked up the phone again after he dropped it, he said, 'Oh, God, Brett. You're putting us in a tight spot,'" Favre said. "He said, 'Brett, playing here is not an option.' Those were his exact, exact words."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3561440

What amuses me is that you keep claiming I am saying TT and McC wanted him back in June and that TT and McC would have been fine with him coming back in March.Also...a quote in June has nothing to do with what was going on in March and April now does it/

Thanks for again providing a quote that does not disprove a thing I, or several others have been saying.

And I say several others because you and phase act as if I am the only saying these things and support the Packers side of this in any way (which is far from the truth).

The quote proves you wrong again when you make comments that if Favre wanted to play for the Packers he would be there. Now I await your 300+ words rebuttal.

The quote proves that on June 20th it was not an option.It does nothing to even address my position that TT and McC would have welcomed him back in March and April.

That you think it does is not really surprising.

I clearly stated if he wanted to play for him he would not have retired or waffled. Just like I clearly stated earlier in this thread that "the way Favre was playing" I did not think the team would have been better off.

Simply things you continue to miss in order to keep arguing.

At this point I am not sure if you even know what the hell you have been arguing. You backpeddle, spin, and come up with stuff that is very amusing.

Im thinking the same about you.You keep trying to prove that TT did not want Favre back...I have not been claiming he did.

There is a difference between giving in and letting him come back had he decided not to retire...and just wanting him back.

Your quote in June is irrelevant to what happened in March and April. Not sure what about that you don't get.

Backpeddle? Not at all, I have remained very consistent in my claims. I don't need to spin, the facts support what I have been saying. You just continue proving things that are not even being argued.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

This quote always amuses me when sho nuff tries and convinces himself that TT and McCarthy wanted Favre back.

Favre called McCarthy on June 20 and told him that he wanted to come back.

"When he picked up the phone again after he dropped it, he said, 'Oh, God, Brett. You're putting us in a tight spot,'" Favre said. "He said, 'Brett, playing here is not an option.' Those were his exact, exact words."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3561440

What amuses me is that you keep claiming I am saying TT and McC wanted him back in June and that TT and McC would have been fine with him coming back in March.Also...a quote in June has nothing to do with what was going on in March and April now does it/

Thanks for again providing a quote that does not disprove a thing I, or several others have been saying.

And I say several others because you and phase act as if I am the only saying these things and support the Packers side of this in any way (which is far from the truth).

The quote proves you wrong again when you make comments that if Favre wanted to play for the Packers he would be there. Now I await your 300+ words rebuttal.

The quote proves that on June 20th it was not an option.It does nothing to even address my position that TT and McC would have welcomed him back in March and April.

That you think it does is not really surprising.

I clearly stated if he wanted to play for him he would not have retired or waffled. Just like I clearly stated earlier in this thread that "the way Favre was playing" I did not think the team would have been better off.

Simply things you continue to miss in order to keep arguing.

At this point I am not sure if you even know what the hell you have been arguing. You backpeddle, spin, and come up with stuff that is very amusing.

Im thinking the same about you.You keep trying to prove that TT did not want Favre back...I have not been claiming he did.

There is a difference between giving in and letting him come back had he decided not to retire...and just wanting him back.

Your quote in June is irrelevant to what happened in March and April. Not sure what about that you don't get.

Backpeddle? Not at all, I have remained very consistent in my claims. I don't need to spin, the facts support what I have been saying. You just continue proving things that are not even being argued.

38 for you already today!

 

[sho nuff]

Pretty sure the ability to count, is not really indicative of a winning argument.

If thats all you got...you might just want to quit now.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

One of my favorite threads this year. Jets are looking at a 1st round bye. Packers are too, but not in a good way.

 

[zDragon]

I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history.

Packer fans (the real ones, not some of the message board posers in this thread with jealousy based vendettas against Favre) all agree with you. It is criminal what has happened to that franchise.

Again...an of you care to back up this "the real Packer fans" crap?Sorry, I have no jealousy based vendetta against Favre. What am I jealous of?

I defended the guy for years and years...there is no vendetta at all.

And the majority of fans both on message boards and just about every poll ever taken...do not agree that TT is as bad as you all are claiming.

You simply have no facts to back that up.

Sure...some of you will talk about people calling into talk radio....ever wonder why usually negative people call in?

Heck...2 years ago people were calling in down here to get rid of Jeff Fisher...thats the extreme position people take when people who don't know as much about football as they think they do...call up to talk radio shows to complain because the team is not doing exactly what they want it to be doing.

It would seem to me that TT is the whole reason that the bad D, bad line, etc that you talk about is there. So no matter which side you look at it TT is at fault.Getting rid of #4 was a mistake. Good ol' 4 was one over-time game away from a super bowl on a 3 loss season.

Sure he threw the Int in overtime but he was the offense. The rushing game put up a total of about 25-30 yds rushing. The only offense GB had was Favre passing. The giants were putting together good drives and won the TOP battle by about 2 to 1. The giants kn

ew the Packers could not run and just had to find a way to force the mistakes in the passing game.

If Grant had busted an 8yd run to start over-time versus a 2yd run there is a lot less chance of Favre throwing the pick. If the running game existed at all versus something like 1 or 2 yds per carry the game could have swung the packers way.

The loss was a TEAM loss not all because of Favre as some like to point out. Sure he was trying to make something happen but the whole team failed around him.

The packers are absolutely a better team with Favre at QB versus Rodgers. He's proven that this year by going into a brand new system and getting his team into good shape for the play-offs. Rodgers has practiced this offense for awhile now and has done a respectable job this year but I do not see him carrying a team the way Favre did right now. Rodgers is a slightly above average QB and if the rest of the team is sub-par or average the the Packers will be average.

Really? TT is the reason that Cullen Jenkins got hurt? Nick Barnett too?TT made Bigby miss Lance Moore the other night?

TT made Pickett get worse? Wow.

Sure, you can blame him for not resigning Corey Williams during the season last year...I have said that many times actually. Though, Corey has not really be lighting it up in Cleveland either while playing next to Rogers.

I put blame on the players as well though. Several are simply not playing up to how they played last year on D. The line and LBs mainly. The secondary, prior to Monday, had been playing at an elite level.

Good ol #4 was not the only reason that team was 13-3 last year either.

And he threw more than one INT that game and was pretty off most of the game...as was Harris on Burress...as was the Oline, and IMO it was one of McCarthy's poorest called games from a coaching standpoint. I have never blamed just Favre for that game and won't start now.

As for blaming Grant's run on the pick? Are you kidding? Had Favre just thrown the ball to the outside rather than the inside, it would have been a first down. It was a good read...but a bad throw. He threw it the one place he could not afford to miss. And it cost him and the team.

And I agree...Rodgers is not carrying the team. Going into this year I did not expect him to or expect him to have to. The defense played so much better last year and what it looked like we would have had for a running game (which they have had the past few games), he should not have to do as much on his own. So far, that has not worked out as the D has not been good, punting has not helped them either...and the running game is just recently getting back on track.

1. Injuries happen I never blamed that on TT. I'm assuming based off your statement the Packers did not deal with injuries last year so it was easier on the team.2. The defense is an average D this year and was only slightly above average last year. I'd have to look but the average per game does not seem to be more than 3-5 points per game.

3. Of course he was not the only reason but a large part of it. The running game was below average last year and has actually improved slightly this year.

4. I stand by my statement "If Grant had busted an 8yd run to start over-time versus a 2yd run there is a lot less chance of Favre throwing the pick. If the running game existed at all versus something like 1 or 2 yds per carry the game could have swung the packers way". Once you take the running game away the mistakes will come on offense it is only a matter of time. Overtime just made this worse especially when the D is giving up big drives.

5. So far this year the running game has been slightly better.

6. The biggest drop-off in the stats I have seen are with the passing game.

I'm looking at this open-minded. I could care less about Favre or Rodgers but if you wanted to make a play-off run and super-bowl run you needed Favre not Rodgers. Long term I still am not sold on Rodgers being anything more than you average to slightly above average QB. He needs a team around him.

1. They did not have near the impactful injuries last year that they have this year.2. The difference is the D just can't seem to get off the field. They are very poor against the run.

3. The running game was below average to start the season...they got progressively better and were much improved once Grant was starting.

4. If Grant had busted alot of other runs things would not be needed. Again, that game was not lost because of just Favre, I have never said it was. But the fact remains Grant did not bust a big run and he made a poor pass.

5. On average from last year...yes, as compared to the last 8 games last year? No, the running game is worse until recently.

6. You are not looking close enough at the D IMO.

IMO, to just make a playoff run was not enough tohttp://www.imdb.com/media/rm2081134080/tt0800080 keep Favre. Anything short of a SB win, which was a long shot even with Faver, would have been a failure IMO.

All QBs need a team around them...even Favre.

1. I would throw this in the slight negative bin over last year but looking at the team as a whole they have coped well. 2. The defense has been playing at an elite level as you stated about the secondary. I think a lot of that is the impression they are on the field a lot. I don't have TOP stats but scoring wise I would think they are close to last year in what they have given up. Especially if you look at the fact they only scored 4 times all of last year. Could be 1-2 point per game difference? Of course I'm gong from memory so I could be wrong.

3. The running game has improved and at an already 10yd per game differnce we can throw it out as an issue from last year to this year.

4. So we can drop how bad the running game was and see it would have been an improvement for favre this year.

5. See 4 we can throw this out from last year to this year.

6. I think the D is equal if not more explosive than last year. Basically the scoring they have done equals out the few extra points (3-5) a game they are given up.

7. Maybe the D is on the field longer since the passing game is getting 50yd per game less and possibly the 1st down % of the offense is lower because of the new starter.

8. How much does the play calling change with a unseasoned QB in hurt the defense also?\

The drop seems to be in the QB position and some key injuries as you have pointed out which would be hard to equate from year to year.

1. I think they have coped ok from losing Barnett and the time Harris missed. I don't think they have done well at all with the loss of Cullen Jenkins.2. The secondary has played at an elite level sure...the rest of the D not so much. And part of them being on the field alot is their own inability to get off the field on 3rd down and to stop anyone from running the ball.

3. You keep basing it soley on last year's total stats. Things were far different once Grant started last year. The start of this year, the run game was bad...far worse than how they ended last year, but better than how they started last year. Overall, I expect them to be better in total this year...this is not a surprise. But they are not at the level yet that they were last year to finish up...but getting there.

4 and 5. Why are we throwing it out? The run game down the stretch last year was better than the run game that started this year...and only recently have they been coming close. Part of it is the line, part of it has been Grant...part of it, IMO, is McCarthy still gets away from the run game way too early.

6. I think you are nuts if you think the Ds are equal. They have rallied with some INTs for TDs...but remember several of those came in 2 games (Detroit and Indy). They are allowing so much more on the ground, and more points per game. I don't see how anyone can think this defense this year is even close to as good as they were last year.

7. Maybe some of it...but does not explain how bad they were Monday night...as GB dominated TOP in the first half and still gave up 24 points.

8. Maybe some...hard to tell. But the defense as a whole has played worse. Pickett was very good last year...not so much this year. The LBs were very good last year...and IMO have been a huge weakness this year.

The drop continues to be with the defense and the drop in QB was expected some...and it has been less IMO, than actually expected.

Min Win: Defense gives up 19 and get a pick in a close game. Rushing 5.1ypc good start to year rushing. Rodgers manages game.Dal Loss: A. Rodgers has a good game with the exception of the offense having a 28% 3rd eff, and missing two attempts to score in the red zone. Defense gets 1 pick and 3 FF. Kicker has a great day. 4.0ypc.

Det Win: Defense gets 3 picks turns 2 into touchdowns. 4.1ypc. A. Rodgers performs against the weakest team in the league.

TB Loss: A. Rodgers 3 ints and offensive fumble puts the defense back on the field put they keep it close by getting 3 picks of their own. 30% 3rd eff, Rushing 1.6ypc. This is all on the offense.

ATL Loss: A. Rodgers 1 int 4.5ypc on offense. A shoot out that could have been won the defense came away with 1int and 1ff.

Sea Win: Good game by rodgers. Defense once again gets the picks with 2 and 1 ff. Running game down to 2.9ypc

Ind Win: Rodgers looks good while the Def comes away with 2 int and 1 FF. Holding Indy to 14pts. 3.3 ypc.

Ten Loss: The defense has a bad day and gets no turn-overs. Rodgers is Rodgers and they lose a close one. 4.2 ypc.

Min Loss: Not sure what to say here but 9% 1st down eff with 4.1ypc. The defense grab 3int and 1 ff in a 1 point loss. Bad passing game with 132yd the offense just couldn't get it done.

Chi Win: Aaron rodgers good game with 1int rushing looked good at 5.1 ypc. Defense did it's part giving up only 3 pts and scoring 7.

No Loss: Aaron rodgers throws 3 picks and flynn a fumble in a game everyone knew was going to be a shoot-out. The def only manages 1int. Rushing 3.5ypc

Got bored so the above is from just browsing box scores. Seems the rushing game has been there except 1 game. The defense has been very explosive and kept them in several of the losses or they could have been a lot worse.

 

[Raider Nation]

Who posted in: How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?

Poster Posts

sho nuff 233
Phase of the Game 88
Ookie Pringle 58
ScottyFargo 27
Challenge Everything 27
Just Win Baby 24
hauser42 18
phthalatemagic 18
springroll 17
packersfan 17
bcr8f 17
Mr.Pack 16
Sabertooth 15
Phurfur 13
Chachi 13
griz145389 11
teamroc 10
Ozymandias 10
H.K. 10
zDragon 10

 

[zDragon]

Who posted in: How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?

Poster Posts

sho nuff 233

Phase of the Game 88

Ookie Pringle 58

ScottyFargo 27

Challenge Everything 27

Just Win Baby 24

hauser42 18

phthalatemagic 18

springroll 17

packersfan 17

bcr8f 17

Mr.Pack 16

Sabertooth 15

Phurfur 13

Chachi 13

griz145389 11

teamroc 10

Ozymandias 10

H.K. 10

zDragon 10

Not long until I reach the top (222)

 

[sho nuff]

Got bored so the above is from just browsing box scores. Seems the rushing game has been there except 1 game. The defense has been very explosive and kept them in several of the losses or they could have been a lot worse.

Don't just look at average per rush for box scores.The Detroit game comes to mind...something around 4.1 per carry...but Grant was at 15 carries for 20 yards.the average gets skewed by one big lumpkin run and what rodgers did with his feet too. though, jackson had a decent game.not sure anyone who watched the first part of this season thought the running game was anywhere near where it was to finish last year.

 

[zDragon]

Got bored so the above is from just browsing box scores. Seems the rushing game has been there except 1 game. The defense has been very explosive and kept them in several of the losses or they could have been a lot worse.

Don't just look at average per rush for box scores.The Detroit game comes to mind...something around 4.1 per carry...but Grant was at 15 carries for 20 yards.the average gets skewed by one big lumpkin run and what rodgers did with his feet too. though, jackson had a decent game.not sure anyone who watched the first part of this season thought the running game was anywhere near where it was to finish last year.

Grant is not the sole running game. If I recall the what I was looking at over half the team (exaggeration) carried the ball. Think the longest was 19 (for several players). So just because grant was shut-down does not mean the running game was shut-down.Also, the big runs count just as much as the short ones.

 

[sho nuff]

Got bored so the above is from just browsing box scores. Seems the rushing game has been there except 1 game. The defense has been very explosive and kept them in several of the losses or they could have been a lot worse.

Don't just look at average per rush for box scores.The Detroit game comes to mind...something around 4.1 per carry...but Grant was at 15 carries for 20 yards.the average gets skewed by one big lumpkin run and what rodgers did with his feet too. though, jackson had a decent game.not sure anyone who watched the first part of this season thought the running game was anywhere near where it was to finish last year.

Grant is not the sole running game. If I recall the what I was looking at over half the team (exaggeration) carried the ball. Think the longest was 19 (for several players). So just because grant was shut-down does not mean the running game was shut-down.Also, the big runs count just as much as the short ones.

I went for the guy who gets the most carries.I don't count Rodgers in "the running game" at all. Those are usually unplanned scrambles.The running game in that game was not that good. It got better in the 4th after they were up IIRC...but it was not consistent the whole game.and its not just that game.There is a reason early in the year people were calling Grant a one year wonder and a bust. Jackson was not doing much better either.Id urge you to go back and take out Rodgers runs and see what that does to that average. My guess would be it would come down.Seriously, Id love to find any Packer fan who would believe the run game started off this year was anything close to how they finished last season.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Sounds like a Brett Favre fan, and not a real Packer fan.

I guess my mom, who sides with the Packers...is not a real fan. I guess her memories of being at the Ice Bowl with my Grandfather mean nothing...I mean, she went against #4 so she is not a real fan to HK.

Would that be 'sho-momma'? (sorry - couldn't resist)

 

[bcr8f]

It's ironic HK now uses Brett Favre to bash the Packers. I don't know what psychotic event caused this unbridled Packer hate but it is extensive.

Packer fans love Favre. Some didn't like him coming back forcing the team to take sides, but he is 39 and Rodgers 24. They had to make a choice. If the Jets make the SB this year they get a 1st round pick.

When this trade is evaluated in a few years that will be factored in.

GO JETS

 

[scooterg61]

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 if favre wouldnt have thrown that INT agnst gmen..they would have went to super bowl.. and if favre would have played better agnst atlanta in post season at home..pack would have went farther..BLAH BLAH BLAH... no arguement.. rodgers is doing fine..actually.put up favres numbers through week 12 and put up rodgers and see how close they are.. i bet not to far off .. and thats comparing a 18 yr vet to a more or less qb in his 1st campaign.... rodgers doesnt play defense.. and 2007 pack had no injuries..2008 pack is playing with injuries.. EVERY qb makes an error.. sometimes it isnt his fault.. wr drops balls or goes off his body and gets intercepted.. i.. as a steeler fan..think rodgers is playing great

 

[parasaurolophus]

It's ironic HK now uses Brett Favre to bash the Packers. I don't know what psychotic event caused this unbridled Packer hate but it is extensive.

Packer fans love Favre. Some didn't like him coming back forcing the team to take sides, but he is 39 and Rodgers 24. They had to make a choice. If the Jets make the SB this year they get a 1st round pick.

When this trade is evaluated in a few years that will be factored in.

GO JETS

if TT isnt making the pick then it will be a much better trade for the packers. If this trade leads to TT being run out of town, well that makes it an even better trade for the packers.

If the Jets win the super bowl, TT will be chased out of town. I will even grab my pitchfork and help round up the posse.

 

[Tau837]

Pretty sure the ability to count, is not really indicative of a winning argument.If thats all you got...you might just want to quit now.

I'd really like to participate in an interesting thread about this subject, but your constant posting and bickering with those annoyed with your constant posting just sucks the enjoyment out of a thread. You just repeat yourself over and over and over and over and....No offense intended, but you've posted 235 times in this thread.

 

[GreenNGold]

Who posted in: How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?

Poster Posts

sho nuff 233

Phase of the Game 88

Ookie Pringle 58

ScottyFargo 27

Challenge Everything 27

Just Win Baby 24

hauser42 18

phthalatemagic 18

springroll 17

packersfan 17

bcr8f 17

Mr.Pack 16

Sabertooth 15

Phurfur 13

Chachi 13

griz145389 11

teamroc 10

Ozymandias 10

H.K. 10

zDragon 10

How many do I have? I definitely have more than 10.

 

[pack66]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

 

[ScottyFargo]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, the week he blew up all over the Lions I was ashamed I ever doubted him...until someone pointed out to me that it was the lions and then we all had a laugh.

 

[Challenge Everything]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

 

[GreenNGold]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, the week he blew up all over the Lions I was ashamed I ever doubted him...until someone pointed out to me that it was the lions and then we all had a laugh.

 

[sho nuff]

It's ironic HK now uses Brett Favre to bash the Packers. I don't know what psychotic event caused this unbridled Packer hate but it is extensive.

Packer fans love Favre. Some didn't like him coming back forcing the team to take sides, but he is 39 and Rodgers 24. They had to make a choice. If the Jets make the SB this year they get a 1st round pick.

When this trade is evaluated in a few years that will be factored in.

GO JETS

if TT isnt making the pick then it will be a much better trade for the packers. If this trade leads to TT being run out of town, well that makes it an even better trade for the packers.

If the Jets win the super bowl, TT will be chased out of town. I will even grab my pitchfork and help round up the posse.

I don't see how TT being run out of town is good for the Packers. He is not perfect...but far better than Mike Sherman GM.As for TT making the pick...if it remains a 2nd...Id love him to make the pick...look at his record of picks in the 2nd round. Pretty darn good.

 

[sho nuff]

Pretty sure the ability to count, is not really indicative of a winning argument.If thats all you got...you might just want to quit now.

I'd really like to participate in an interesting thread about this subject, but your constant posting and bickering with those annoyed with your constant posting just sucks the enjoyment out of a thread. You just repeat yourself over and over and over and over and....No offense intended, but you've posted 235 times in this thread.

As if mulitple people repeating the same things over and over is not happening here?How many times has Ookie or Phase posted that Ted Thompson did not contact Brett Favre before he retired?How many times has someone posted the Jets record?Yeah...it must just be me.Maybe when some of you realize that despite my post count in here...its not all just about me, you will be better off and make better arguments. Instead, some of you remain to just keep making it personal rather than actually discussing the topic.

 

[sho nuff]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

Sure it can help or hurt the defense. But it was bumped again after the Monday game. And his point is dead on. It gets bumped after the losses and the usual suspects generally are quiet after the wins.

 

[sho nuff]

Anyway...everyone enjoy the holiday and the football.

 

[Challenge Everything]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

Sure it can help or hurt the defense. But it was bumped again after the Monday game. And his point is dead on. It gets bumped after the losses and the usual suspects generally are quiet after the wins.

This thread was on page 2 maybe 3 this morning and you brought it back up. Go be with your family.240

 

[sho nuff]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

Sure it can help or hurt the defense. But it was bumped again after the Monday game. And his point is dead on. It gets bumped after the losses and the usual suspects generally are quiet after the wins.

This thread was on page 2 maybe 3 this morning and you brought it back up. Go be with your family.240

Shocking you again try making it personal.Anyone see the irony in someone else posting about me and counting my posts...yet telling me to go be with my family?Grow up.

 

[zDragon]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Look back in the thread. I posted a list of all games played so far and the defense has kept them in a lot of those games with Picks and Forced Fumbles. In fact of the 303 points they have scored the defense has scored 49. It seems the defense is being picked on a lot even though it has provem to be explosive and at time very elite as some here have posted. Sure the defense gave up points against one of the best offenses in the league. One of the only teams scoring more per game are the Jets. Everyone knew this was going to be a shoot-out and that A. Rodgers was a big key to a wing. He did not get the job done and the turn-overs just put the defense in a bad position. You just can't have turn-overs against a high powered offense.

 

[Challenge Everything]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

Sure it can help or hurt the defense. But it was bumped again after the Monday game. And his point is dead on. It gets bumped after the losses and the usual suspects generally are quiet after the wins.

This thread was on page 2 maybe 3 this morning and you brought it back up. Go be with your family.240

Shocking you again try making it personal.Anyone see the irony in someone else posting about me and counting my posts...yet telling me to go be with my family?Grow up.

Um, keep telling yourself it is personal because the only one believing that is yourself. I think it is humorous that you have a 3:1 ratio of posts to the next leading post counter in this thread. Not to mention the "facts" you keep bringing up to try to prove your point. It is not working.Again, you have stated many speculations and many "facts" pointing to your beliefs about the Packers and the Brett Favre saga. You have come across as irrational compared to the numbers that have been shown. Telling people that Favre was not playing well in the first few games does not match up with what you would like others to believe. The core of the discussion is "How is the Packer's decision to go with Rodgers looking now?" For this season that decision has looked pretty poor and all because of a personal vendetta that a GM had towards the franchise QB. This point is not up for debate. You and others can spout off all of the numbers they want but those numbers are not the same if Brett Favre is behind center. It is a fact that the QB helps to dictate the whole game... defense included. The QB, if an opposing threat, helps determine the coverage of the defense which may open up running lanes, single coverage and a plethora of options from the QB. Rodgers neither scares defenses nor takes advantage of what the defense gives him... to the degree that Favre does. Again, this point is not up for debate. On many occasions Rodgers has looked like a deer in headlights when defenses have thrown tricks at him. He is, right now, unable to read and break down defenses to the point that Favre does, did, and is doing.Short term, the decision to let Favre go was ridiculous and people have been saying this since it happened... not after a Packers loss. The Packers were a 13-3 team with a, still, top 5 QB behind the center, a running game to match, and wide receivers that can explode... with the threat of Favre. As much as people would like to point to the "decline" of the offensive line, or the defense giving up yards, or whatever... these all trickle down to the QB play. If Rodgers throws more quickly, if he reads the hot read, if he was a threat to go deep, if he could rocket the ball to the receivers, the opposing defense needs to respect those attributes. Rodgers has not shown these therefore the defenses tee up on him and blitz 5 or 6. To reiterate, the Packers decision for this year took a Superbowl contending team and dismantled the most important piece to it. If the Packers were not a Brett Favre away from a Superbowl... they certainly are not an Aaron Rodgers away from becoming a Superbowl champion. I don't think anyone was predicting the Packers would make the Superbowl if Favre was still here... back in June... however, the division was all but a lock with him here at that time. With Rodgers, people were predicting 9-7 tops with many in the 8-8 department. That is not a good decision to make when you have a division title "locked" compared to a possible wild card. I don't understand how anybody can try to claim that is a good decision. The Packers are currently 5-6 and I stand by my earlier statements that a Favre lead Packers team is at least 7-4 right now and quite possibly 8-3. He made the team better... defense included.

 

[hauser42]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

Sure it can help or hurt the defense. But it was bumped again after the Monday game. And his point is dead on. It gets bumped after the losses and the usual suspects generally are quiet after the wins.

This thread was on page 2 maybe 3 this morning and you brought it back up. Go be with your family.240

Shocking you again try making it personal.Anyone see the irony in someone else posting about me and counting my posts...yet telling me to go be with my family?Grow up.

Um, keep telling yourself it is personal because the only one believing that is yourself. I think it is humorous that you have a 3:1 ratio of posts to the next leading post counter in this thread. Not to mention the "facts" you keep bringing up to try to prove your point. It is not working.Again, you have stated many speculations and many "facts" pointing to your beliefs about the Packers and the Brett Favre saga. You have come across as irrational compared to the numbers that have been shown. Telling people that Favre was not playing well in the first few games does not match up with what you would like others to believe. The core of the discussion is "How is the Packer's decision to go with Rodgers looking now?" For this season that decision has looked pretty poor and all because of a personal vendetta that a GM had towards the franchise QB. This point is not up for debate. You and others can spout off all of the numbers they want but those numbers are not the same if Brett Favre is behind center. It is a fact that the QB helps to dictate the whole game... defense included. The QB, if an opposing threat, helps determine the coverage of the defense which may open up running lanes, single coverage and a plethora of options from the QB. Rodgers neither scares defenses nor takes advantage of what the defense gives him... to the degree that Favre does. Again, this point is not up for debate. On many occasions Rodgers has looked like a deer in headlights when defenses have thrown tricks at him. He is, right now, unable to read and break down defenses to the point that Favre does, did, and is doing.Short term, the decision to let Favre go was ridiculous and people have been saying this since it happened... not after a Packers loss. The Packers were a 13-3 team with a, still, top 5 QB behind the center, a running game to match, and wide receivers that can explode... with the threat of Favre. As much as people would like to point to the "decline" of the offensive line, or the defense giving up yards, or whatever... these all trickle down to the QB play. If Rodgers throws more quickly, if he reads the hot read, if he was a threat to go deep, if he could rocket the ball to the receivers, the opposing defense needs to respect those attributes. Rodgers has not shown these therefore the defenses tee up on him and blitz 5 or 6. To reiterate, the Packers decision for this year took a Superbowl contending team and dismantled the most important piece to it. If the Packers were not a Brett Favre away from a Superbowl... they certainly are not an Aaron Rodgers away from becoming a Superbowl champion. I don't think anyone was predicting the Packers would make the Superbowl if Favre was still here... back in June... however, the division was all but a lock with him here at that time. With Rodgers, people were predicting 9-7 tops with many in the 8-8 department. That is not a good decision to make when you have a division title "locked" compared to a possible wild card. I don't understand how anybody can try to claim that is a good decision. The Packers are currently 5-6 and I stand by my earlier statements that a Favre lead Packers team is at least 7-4 right now and quite possibly 8-3. He made the team better... defense included.

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.You are forgetting the biggest one of all.Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

 

[J R]

Rodgers has a higher DVOA than Favre so far this season.

 

[hauser42]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

No they offered him a chance to come back in early summer but he told them to stay home he was going to stay retired. Then when he wanted to come back they sat down and had intense talk with him on how dedicated he would be. Brett was unsure he could put the time in that the coaching staff was wanting.Brett had a couple of chances to come back to GB, before he was traded to the Jets.

This myth out there that Ted Thompson wanted Brett out is so BS, I can not believe how many people think that way.

 

[sho nuff]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Look back in the thread. I posted a list of all games played so far and the defense has kept them in a lot of those games with Picks and Forced Fumbles. In fact of the 303 points they have scored the defense has scored 49. It seems the defense is being picked on a lot even though it has provem to be explosive and at time very elite as some here have posted. Sure the defense gave up points against one of the best offenses in the league. One of the only teams scoring more per game are the Jets. Everyone knew this was going to be a shoot-out and that A. Rodgers was a big key to a wing. He did not get the job done and the turn-overs just put the defense in a bad position. You just can't have turn-overs against a high powered offense.

The defense is explosive and has scored points...2 games i pretty much won the game for them or kept them in it.However...anyone who has watched the games, rather than just looking up INTs and points scored, knows the defense has not been good this year and is much worse than last year. You can keep denying it all you want...but just about every person sees this.

 

[sho nuff]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

Sure it can help or hurt the defense. But it was bumped again after the Monday game. And his point is dead on. It gets bumped after the losses and the usual suspects generally are quiet after the wins.

This thread was on page 2 maybe 3 this morning and you brought it back up. Go be with your family.240

Shocking you again try making it personal.Anyone see the irony in someone else posting about me and counting my posts...yet telling me to go be with my family?Grow up.

Um, keep telling yourself it is personal because the only one believing that is yourself. I think it is humorous that you have a 3:1 ratio of posts to the next leading post counter in this thread. Not to mention the "facts" you keep bringing up to try to prove your point. It is not working.Again, you have stated many speculations and many "facts" pointing to your beliefs about the Packers and the Brett Favre saga. You have come across as irrational compared to the numbers that have been shown. Telling people that Favre was not playing well in the first few games does not match up with what you would like others to believe. The core of the discussion is "How is the Packer's decision to go with Rodgers looking now?" For this season that decision has looked pretty poor and all because of a personal vendetta that a GM had towards the franchise QB. This point is not up for debate. You and others can spout off all of the numbers they want but those numbers are not the same if Brett Favre is behind center. It is a fact that the QB helps to dictate the whole game... defense included. The QB, if an opposing threat, helps determine the coverage of the defense which may open up running lanes, single coverage and a plethora of options from the QB. Rodgers neither scares defenses nor takes advantage of what the defense gives him... to the degree that Favre does. Again, this point is not up for debate. On many occasions Rodgers has looked like a deer in headlights when defenses have thrown tricks at him. He is, right now, unable to read and break down defenses to the point that Favre does, did, and is doing.Short term, the decision to let Favre go was ridiculous and people have been saying this since it happened... not after a Packers loss. The Packers were a 13-3 team with a, still, top 5 QB behind the center, a running game to match, and wide receivers that can explode... with the threat of Favre. As much as people would like to point to the "decline" of the offensive line, or the defense giving up yards, or whatever... these all trickle down to the QB play. If Rodgers throws more quickly, if he reads the hot read, if he was a threat to go deep, if he could rocket the ball to the receivers, the opposing defense needs to respect those attributes. Rodgers has not shown these therefore the defenses tee up on him and blitz 5 or 6. To reiterate, the Packers decision for this year took a Superbowl contending team and dismantled the most important piece to it. If the Packers were not a Brett Favre away from a Superbowl... they certainly are not an Aaron Rodgers away from becoming a Superbowl champion. I don't think anyone was predicting the Packers would make the Superbowl if Favre was still here... back in June... however, the division was all but a lock with him here at that time. With Rodgers, people were predicting 9-7 tops with many in the 8-8 department. That is not a good decision to make when you have a division title "locked" compared to a possible wild card. I don't understand how anybody can try to claim that is a good decision. The Packers are currently 5-6 and I stand by my earlier statements that a Favre lead Packers team is at least 7-4 right now and quite possibly 8-3. He made the team better... defense included.

What else can it be but personal when people are posting specifically my post count? Specifically mentioning me in posts? Calling me out for things that many others are saying as well? There are several who continue to only make it personal. And you are quickly becoming one of them.Its not working because some of you just don't want to see the truth of what has happened. Instead we have people saying that those who support TT are not real fans.We have people repeating the same BS that has nothing to do with what is going on.Irrational? Saying Favre was not playing well early in the year is irrational? It was a fact...for many of those games he was not playing well. Several well noted people have commented on this. This was not solely my opinion.I have said over and over the decision was not just about this season. So only worrying about this season is shortsighted.The decision now is still not that bad...why? Because the rest of this team has some serious holes. Not sure what about that is hard for some of you to figure out.The GM had no vendetta against Favre. This statement is completely ridiculous.You can keep saying how much effect he would have on this defense...but its BS. Sorry...Brett would not have changed the defense on Monday night.He would not have changed how they played defense for much of this season. Unless again he can play DT or DE or LB.Favre was great to start off last year...so why was the running game so poor? I mean that pass game should have opened everything up right?And no...not all the issues are just a trickle down from the QB play. Because QB play has not been that bad...or even bad at all most of the year.And Rodgers can go deep...and he can rocket the ball to his WRs...or have you not watched him at all this year?I have said over and over that short term...this year, it was probably best to keep Favre. So your last paragraph is pretty pointless. ITs something I have never denied until the way #4 played early this season and how this team has played.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

This myth out there that Ted Thompson wanted Brett out is so BS, I can not believe how many people think that way.

It isn't a myth. It has been reported that TT made the decision as early as December that he didn't want Favre back. Terry Bradshaw stated on Sunday that it is WIDELY KNOWN BY NFL EXECUTIVES that TT didn't want Favre for the last two years. It isn't BS it is the truth. TT quit on Favre.If TT wanted Favre back why didn't he make ONE ATTEMPT to contact him prior to his retirement?

I'm still amazed that people actually think TT wanted Favre back.

 

[Phase of the Game]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, because this thread was started late Sunday afternoon. Rodgers does not play defense but his play can help or hurt the defense.

Sure it can help or hurt the defense. But it was bumped again after the Monday game. And his point is dead on. It gets bumped after the losses and the usual suspects generally are quiet after the wins.

This thread was on page 2 maybe 3 this morning and you brought it back up. Go be with your family.240

Shocking you again try making it personal.Anyone see the irony in someone else posting about me and counting my posts...yet telling me to go be with my family?Grow up.

Um, keep telling yourself it is personal because the only one believing that is yourself. I think it is humorous that you have a 3:1 ratio of posts to the next leading post counter in this thread. Not to mention the "facts" you keep bringing up to try to prove your point. It is not working.Again, you have stated many speculations and many "facts" pointing to your beliefs about the Packers and the Brett Favre saga. You have come across as irrational compared to the numbers that have been shown. Telling people that Favre was not playing well in the first few games does not match up with what you would like others to believe. The core of the discussion is "How is the Packer's decision to go with Rodgers looking now?" For this season that decision has looked pretty poor and all because of a personal vendetta that a GM had towards the franchise QB. This point is not up for debate. You and others can spout off all of the numbers they want but those numbers are not the same if Brett Favre is behind center. It is a fact that the QB helps to dictate the whole game... defense included. The QB, if an opposing threat, helps determine the coverage of the defense which may open up running lanes, single coverage and a plethora of options from the QB. Rodgers neither scares defenses nor takes advantage of what the defense gives him... to the degree that Favre does. Again, this point is not up for debate. On many occasions Rodgers has looked like a deer in headlights when defenses have thrown tricks at him. He is, right now, unable to read and break down defenses to the point that Favre does, did, and is doing.Short term, the decision to let Favre go was ridiculous and people have been saying this since it happened... not after a Packers loss. The Packers were a 13-3 team with a, still, top 5 QB behind the center, a running game to match, and wide receivers that can explode... with the threat of Favre. As much as people would like to point to the "decline" of the offensive line, or the defense giving up yards, or whatever... these all trickle down to the QB play. If Rodgers throws more quickly, if he reads the hot read, if he was a threat to go deep, if he could rocket the ball to the receivers, the opposing defense needs to respect those attributes. Rodgers has not shown these therefore the defenses tee up on him and blitz 5 or 6. To reiterate, the Packers decision for this year took a Superbowl contending team and dismantled the most important piece to it. If the Packers were not a Brett Favre away from a Superbowl... they certainly are not an Aaron Rodgers away from becoming a Superbowl champion. I don't think anyone was predicting the Packers would make the Superbowl if Favre was still here... back in June... however, the division was all but a lock with him here at that time. With Rodgers, people were predicting 9-7 tops with many in the 8-8 department. That is not a good decision to make when you have a division title "locked" compared to a possible wild card. I don't understand how anybody can try to claim that is a good decision. The Packers are currently 5-6 and I stand by my earlier statements that a Favre lead Packers team is at least 7-4 right now and quite possibly 8-3. He made the team better... defense included.

Damn

 

[zDragon]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Look back in the thread. I posted a list of all games played so far and the defense has kept them in a lot of those games with Picks and Forced Fumbles. In fact of the 303 points they have scored the defense has scored 49. It seems the defense is being picked on a lot even though it has provem to be explosive and at time very elite as some here have posted. Sure the defense gave up points against one of the best offenses in the league. One of the only teams scoring more per game are the Jets. Everyone knew this was going to be a shoot-out and that A. Rodgers was a big key to a wing. He did not get the job done and the turn-overs just put the defense in a bad position. You just can't have turn-overs against a high powered offense.

The defense is explosive and has scored points...2 games i pretty much won the game for them or kept them in it.However...anyone who has watched the games, rather than just looking up INTs and points scored, knows the defense has not been good this year and is much worse than last year. You can keep denying it all you want...but just about every person sees this.

The stats are the easiest way show that the defense is not as bad as some would want you to believe. So in watching the games I have I can say Rodgers is purely average and sometimes WAY below average since I got to see the recent slaughter. Of course that is subjective and we could argue all day and not prove anything with out the stats.

 

[hauser42]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

This myth out there that Ted Thompson wanted Brett out is so BS, I can not believe how many people think that way.

It isn't a myth. It has been reported that TT made the decision as early as December that he didn't want Favre back. Terry Bradshaw stated on Sunday that it is WIDELY KNOWN BY NFL EXECUTIVES that TT didn't want Favre for the last two years. It isn't BS it is the truth. TT quit on Favre.If TT wanted Favre back why didn't he make ONE ATTEMPT to contact him prior to his retirement?

I'm still amazed that people actually think TT wanted Favre back.

Terry Bradshaw has been a buddy of Favre's for a while so he will spin it for his guy when he can. What NFL Exec have you talked to and told you that TT did not want him back. Lot of things I believe comes from TT not going and signing all these free agents that people feel the Packers should have had.

TT has stated he wanted Brett to make his decision and stayed away so he would not cloud his judgement. Explain to me why he was willing to get on a plane,go down south to bring back Brett??

 

[ScottyFargo]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

This myth out there that Ted Thompson wanted Brett out is so BS, I can not believe how many people think that way.

It isn't a myth. It has been reported that TT made the decision as early as December that he didn't want Favre back. Terry Bradshaw stated on Sunday that it is WIDELY KNOWN BY NFL EXECUTIVES that TT didn't want Favre for the last two years. It isn't BS it is the truth. TT quit on Favre.If TT wanted Favre back why didn't he make ONE ATTEMPT to contact him prior to his retirement?

I'm still amazed that people actually think TT wanted Favre back.

Terry Bradshaw has been a buddy of Favre's for a while so he will spin it for his guy when he can. What NFL Exec have you talked to and told you that TT did not want him back. Lot of things I believe comes from TT not going and signing all these free agents that people feel the Packers should have had.

TT has stated he wanted Brett to make his decision and stayed away so he would not cloud his judgement. Explain to me why he was willing to get on a plane,go down south to bring back Brett??

Hand delivering his locker? Wanted to offer him millions of dollars to stay retired pro-actively? Murder Brett Favre in his sleep so he did not cause trouble when he ultimately decided to not retire as we all knew he would?

 

[Phase of the Game]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

This myth out there that Ted Thompson wanted Brett out is so BS, I can not believe how many people think that way.

It isn't a myth. It has been reported that TT made the decision as early as December that he didn't want Favre back. Terry Bradshaw stated on Sunday that it is WIDELY KNOWN BY NFL EXECUTIVES that TT didn't want Favre for the last two years. It isn't BS it is the truth. TT quit on Favre.If TT wanted Favre back why didn't he make ONE ATTEMPT to contact him prior to his retirement?

I'm still amazed that people actually think TT wanted Favre back.

Terry Bradshaw has been a buddy of Favre's for a while so he will spin it for his guy when he can. What NFL Exec have you talked to and told you that TT did not want him back. Lot of things I believe comes from TT not going and signing all these free agents that people feel the Packers should have had.

TT has stated he wanted Brett to make his decision and stayed away so he would not cloud his judgement. Explain to me why he was willing to get on a plane,go down south to bring back Brett??

I can't explain anything to someone this delusional.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

This myth out there that Ted Thompson wanted Brett out is so BS, I can not believe how many people think that way.

It isn't a myth. It has been reported that TT made the decision as early as December that he didn't want Favre back. Terry Bradshaw stated on Sunday that it is WIDELY KNOWN BY NFL EXECUTIVES that TT didn't want Favre for the last two years. It isn't BS it is the truth. TT quit on Favre.If TT wanted Favre back why didn't he make ONE ATTEMPT to contact him prior to his retirement?

I'm still amazed that people actually think TT wanted Favre back.

What NFL Exec have you talked to and told you that TT did not want him back.

I would guess that Bradshaw has relationships with a lot of key people in the NFL and wouldn't make something like that up. Of course.....some of you will refuse to acknowledge that TT wanted Favre out!

 

[Challenge Everything]

Wonderful point just wonderful points and facts to back up more stance.

You are forgetting the biggest one of all.

Brett Favre quite/retired from the Green Bay Packers shortly after last season. He only wanted back in when training camp began, and the team had already moved on.

Please. "Moved on" how? Did they bring in new WR's that Favre would have to get to know? Did they alter the playbook so drastically in the 1st week of TC that he wouldn't be able to catch up?

They're moving on consisted of calling Aaron Rodgers the QB. That wasn't so far a step that it was impossible to go back to Favre, save for the fact that TT did not want Favre's shadow there. He wanted to create a new legacy, he thought the rest of the team was ready enough to get back the division and into the playoffs. But he was wrong, and now the Jets are the ones who benefit while GB suffers the loss of a legend on the back of TT's spite.

No they offered him a chance to come back in early summer but he told them to stay home he was going to stay retired. Then when he wanted to come back they sat down and had intense talk with him on how dedicated he would be. Brett was unsure he could put the time in that the coaching staff was wanting.Brett had a couple of chances to come back to GB, before he was traded to the Jets.

This myth out there that Ted Thompson wanted Brett out is so BS, I can not believe how many people think that way.

Dude, you live 20 miles away from Green Bay. I am assuming you heard or read the local news all summer about this crap. Are you going to believe national media over local stuff? I sure won't and I have ten years of experience with Green Bay media vs. National media about Green Bay. An offer of a back up role to a 17 year vet who led the team to a 13-3 record the following year is a slap in the face to said QB... any QB. Why would you or anyone want to return to a team that offered a back up role to the team that he lead a year before without injury or other happening that would lessen his abilities? The offer sucked and was a proverbial FU to Favre. To blame or put blame on Favre for that is ridiculous.

 

[Challenge Everything]

re: sho nuff

Too many quotes to get this all meddled. If you are taking this personally, fine, I can't say anything that will make you think otherwise. I do, however, think its funny you have so many posts compared to others though.

Yes, it is irrational saying Favre was playing poorly because he was in a new system, new personnel, new coaches, new players, new environment. Those same variable would not have been present had Favre still been in Green Bay. Therefore, one cannot make the assessment that "poor play" as a Jet would translate into "poor play" as a Packer. That is what is irrational.

Yes, the decision and worrying about this season is shortsighted. The GM has to worry about this year because that is what is happening this year. A GM plans for the following year but does not worry about that year before this year is even played. If Rodgers walks, you worry about it then, not a year before the possibility especially because one player does not make a team. Worrying about the goings on of Rodgers at the expense of the team and this year, while being shortsighted, is much better than satisfying one player at the cost of the team. Sure, others might turn this last paragraph around to say the same thing about Favre, however the GM should be concerned with one thing at the top of his priority list... winning this year. Thompson, in his decisions, showed me he was not concerned with the team this year nor how well they might do. That is poor GM'ing.

Yes, Brett Favre and any QB has drastic effects on the defense. Saying, "Brett would not have changed the defense Monday night" does not say much of your argument. The NO defense would have had a different game plan, covered differently, blitzed differently, offense play calling would have been different, etc. etc. So, to say the same NO defense game plan would have had the same effect on the Green Bay offense (this is what you are claiming) is in itself ridiculous. Your comments appear to tell others that the QB has no bearing on how the defense plays... his own teams defense... or has any effect whatsoever. Wow, if you really believe that, I have nothing else for you.

No, Rodgers cannot go deep nor rocket the ball. Those two things are no where near what Favre can do and opposing defenses know this. Rodgers is lucky if he can throw an accurate 40 yard pass. It might happen but every QB can sometimes do it. Rodgers is average at best at the long ball. Rodgers throwing a rocket? Please, Rodgers throws a rocket ball like my grandma knits a blanket and that is definitely not fast. Again, Rodgers is average at best at velocity on the ball but also having accuracy with that velocity.

 

[teamroc]

Rodgers has a higher DVOA than Favre so far this season.

Yeah clearly they should have kept Favre for 1 more year, and extended Rodgers. Cake + eating it.

 

[pack66]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, the week he blew up all over the Lions I was ashamed I ever doubted him...until someone pointed out to me that it was the lions and then we all had a laugh.

Well if we're going to go back, then lets go back to the 1st game against Minnesota. He played excellent against a very good Minnesota defense. But more importantly, the GB defense played well.I think you're missing the point. The defense is the reason why they lost that game. You have to be able to make at least a few stops to let your offense back on the field.And as far as doubting Rodgers, where were you when he played well against Chicago the week before? Or Indianapolis? Or Atlanta, for that matter?

 

[pack66]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Look back in the thread. I posted a list of all games played so far and the defense has kept them in a lot of those games with Picks and Forced Fumbles. In fact of the 303 points they have scored the defense has scored 49. It seems the defense is being picked on a lot even though it has provem to be explosive and at time very elite as some here have posted. Sure the defense gave up points against one of the best offenses in the league. One of the only teams scoring more per game are the Jets. Everyone knew this was going to be a shoot-out and that A. Rodgers was a big key to a wing. He did not get the job done and the turn-overs just put the defense in a bad position. You just can't have turn-overs against a high powered offense.

And Favre has never had any turnovers in a big game in which GB has lost? You can say all you want about that defense, but point of fact, while GB is very good at turnovers they are very poor at stopping 3rd down conversions. Their run defense isn't the best either at 26th in the league. That defense is good against one dimensional teams (Minny earlier in the year comes to mind), but when you add in threats on both rushing and passing, that defense is average at best (2nd Minny game as an example).

 

[teamroc]

It's always fun how the Rodgers/TT bashers come out after a loss, then go quiet after a win. I just want to point out one thing, Rodgers doesn't play defense. And although Rodgers threw some picks, the defense couldn't stop the Saints offense...at all.

Yes, the week he blew up all over the Lions I was ashamed I ever doubted him...until someone pointed out to me that it was the lions and then we all had a laugh.

Well if we're going to go back, then lets go back to the 1st game against Minnesota. He played excellent against a very good Minnesota defense. But more importantly, the GB defense played well.I think you're missing the point. The defense is the reason why they lost that game. You have to be able to make at least a few stops to let your offense back on the field.And as far as doubting Rodgers, where were you when he played well against Chicago the week before? Or Indianapolis? Or Atlanta, for that matter?

The point isn't whether TTs gamble paid off, the point is he should never have gambled in the first place. You can go all-in with 2-7 off suit and win, doesn't mean it was a good move. It was a bad move. Nothing will change that. There was no reason to gamble in that situation. Keep both. Why go into the season with 3 QBs with a combined 0 starts in the NFL. They were loaded on both sides of the ball. They almost made the SB last year. And TT felt the need to gamble on a 1st year starter when Favre was ready to return?Rodgers clearly is a solid QB. He's been put in an impossible situation, made 1000x worse by TT. If Favre comes back this year, and they missed the playoffs. Then Rodgers would start next year with no pressure. Far less media attention. But instead of protecting a first year starter replacing a legend, TT created a circus around Rodgers. He's actually played VERY well considering everything.I'm not a Rodgers basher. I just bash TT for even making this move. If TT had this much faith in Rodgers, EXTEND HIM in June. Bring Favre back. Best of both worlds. Rodgers would be quite happy with his new contract, Favre gets 1 more shot. Sure it looks worse if the Packers lose, but that's irrelevant. The ends don't always justify the means. I also think Favre is a huge diva. I'm far from a Favre lover. But when you look at, what was best for the Packers, I can't be convinced TT acted in the best interest of the Packers. I firmly believe his ego got in the way of his job.

 

[pack66]

re: sho nuff

....

Yes, the decision and worrying about this season is shortsighted. The GM has to worry about this year because that is what is happening this year. A GM plans for the following year but does not worry about that year before this year is even played. If Rodgers walks, you worry about it then, not a year before the possibility especially because one player does not make a team. Worrying about the goings on of Rodgers at the expense of the team and this year, while being shortsighted, is much better than satisfying one player at the cost of the team. Sure, others might turn this last paragraph around to say the same thing about Favre, however the GM should be concerned with one thing at the top of his priority list... winning this year. Thompson, in his decisions, showed me he was not concerned with the team this year nor how well they might do. That is poor GM'ing.

Yes, Brett Favre and any QB has drastic effects on the defense. Saying, "Brett would not have changed the defense Monday night" does not say much of your argument. The NO defense would have had a different game plan, covered differently, blitzed differently, offense play calling would have been different, etc. etc. So, to say the same NO defense game plan would have had the same effect on the Green Bay offense (this is what you are claiming) is in itself ridiculous. Your comments appear to tell others that the QB has no bearing on how the defense plays... his own teams defense... or has any effect whatsoever. Wow, if you really believe that, I have nothing else for you.

No, Rodgers cannot go deep nor rocket the ball. Those two things are no where near what Favre can do and opposing defenses know this. Rodgers is lucky if he can throw an accurate 40 yard pass. It might happen but every QB can sometimes do it. Rodgers is average at best at the long ball. Rodgers throwing a rocket? Please, Rodgers throws a rocket ball like my grandma knits a blanket and that is definitely not fast. Again, Rodgers is average at best at velocity on the ball but also having accuracy with that velocity.

Have you watched Rodgers play at all? The guy has every bit as strong an arm as Favre. And as far as the deep ball is concerned, I recall reading a quote from Driver or Jennings that said Rodgers throw's the deep ball better than Favre. What Rodgers lacks is Favre's ability to read defenses and touch. Those things only come with time.In response to your "win now" attitude. That's really worked in Washington the past few years, hasn't it? If you want to bash TT, bash his lack of ability in drafting DL and OLinemen. The GB offensive line looks just as poor as it did at the beginning of last season and Justin Harrell is a bust thus far. Maybe the light will go on with Harrell next year. It took Mario Williams, Marcus Stroud and a few other high DL draft picks some time to get it together.

 

[pack66]

For those that question:

Goin' deep

ESPN's Cris Carter interviewed Packers wide receivers Donald Driver and Greg Jennings and asked them who throws the better deep ball, Rodgers or former Packers quarterback Brett Favre.

"I've caught hundreds, hundreds from Brett," Driver said. "I would say Aaron Rodgers probably throws the better deep ball. . . . You know when I say pretty? His ball is gorgeous. He throws it with enough air for every receiver. I don't care who you are, you can get up for that ball."

Jennings gave a nod to Rodgers as well.

"I think last year when Brett was here, we noticed it in practice," Jennings said. "Did you see the deep ball Aaron throws? Now as far as on a consistent basis, Aaron probably throws a better deep ball. But I mean I caught the overtime ball in Denver (from Favre) and it does not get any prettier than that."

Carter said the connection between Rodgers and his receivers was evident.

"It takes years to develop this type of chemistry," Carter said. "Their memories about Aaron Rodgers throwing the deep ball? That was the scout team on the other field. So I'm shocked at their ability to develop this chemistry in a short period of time."

Link