Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If Favre stops playing midseason (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter phillzphan
- Start date
Big Score
Footballguy
2 rookies will be starting on the O'line, RB position is still up in the air, their #1 WR got traded away and Favre has always been a gunslinging gambler.So given the above known circumstances, why on earth would anyone want to bet Favre throws more TD's than ints? Looks like a sucker bet to me
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Just for the record Walker didn't play last year anyway, so it really doesnt change things form last year.In the wrds of Dr. Cheeks, "rooting against Favre in Lambeau is like rooting against God in a chess game in heaven."2 rookies will be starting on the O'line, RB position is still up in the air, their #1 WR got traded away and Favre has always been a gunslinging gambler.So given the above known circumstances, why on earth would anyone want to bet Favre throws more TD's than ints?
Looks like a sucker bet to me
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Score
Footballguy
Just for the record, how many TD's vs picks, did Favre throw last year without his #1 WR?That was the point!Just for the record Walker didn't play last year anyway, so it really doesnt change things form last year.In the wrds of Dr. Cheeks, "rooting against Favre in Lambeau is like rooting against God in a chess game in heaven."2 rookies will be starting on the O'line, RB position is still up in the air, their #1 WR got traded away and Favre has always been a gunslinging gambler.So given the above known circumstances, why on earth would anyone want to bet Favre throws more TD's than ints?
Looks like a sucker bet to me
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
i know what the point was, but when listing changes that are negative you shouldnt list something that has no impact
EDIT: It's like Wimer's Why L.J. Smith Is Overrated. He says L.J. did well last year because T.O. was suspended. T.O. won't be back this year either, so there's really no change.
EDIT: It's like Wimer's Why L.J. Smith Is Overrated. He says L.J. did well last year because T.O. was suspended. T.O. won't be back this year either, so there's really no change.
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Score
Footballguy
pigskinliquors
Dr. Parrothead
I'll take that bet. I have him projected at 24 TD's and 25 INT's. I think it could go either way, but it's a bet I'm willing to make. What do you want to bet?ookook said:
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Wow...just...wow. Who was his number one last year? Driver. Is Driver back? Yes, he is. The person that's not coming back was NOT his number one, or his number two, or his number anything. The person thats not coming back did not play at all last year and therefore his absence again this year has NO IMPACT ON THIS YEAR.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
Big Score
Footballguy
:whoosh:
Why? It comes from someone who understands statistical outliers, regression to the mean, and sampling theory. Last 4 years Favre has thrown 27TDs per season and 20 INTs.With last season. Without last season, 30 TDs and 17 INTs in the four previous years. With the Packers, he has thrown more TDs than INTs 12 times and the reverse only twice.2 rookies will be starting on the O'line, RB position is still up in the air, their #1 WR got traded away and Favre has always been a gunslinging gambler.So given the above known circumstances, why on earth would anyone want to bet Favre throws more TD's than ints? Looks like a sucker bet to me
jurb26
Footballguy
Favre is not the player he once was and the O does not look a whole heck of a lot better, if better at all, than last year.Why? It comes from someone who understands statistical outliers, regression to the mean, and sampling theory. Last 4 years Favre has thrown 27TDs per season and 20 INTs.With last season. Without last season, 30 TDs and 17 INTs in the four previous years. With the Packers, he has thrown more TDs than INTs 12 times and the reverse only twice.2 rookies will be starting on the O'line, RB position is still up in the air, their #1 WR got traded away and Favre has always been a gunslinging gambler.So given the above known circumstances, why on earth would anyone want to bet Favre throws more TD's than ints? Looks like a sucker bet to me
jurb26
Footballguy
Fair enough. What kind of stipulation is there if he gets pulled?
pigskinliquors
Dr. Parrothead
I just Ran Stats Dominator to find examples of QB's age 30 or more with 25+ Interceptions in a season since 1980. The list turned up 11 examples:
NAME POS YR AGE EXP G CMP ATT PYD Y/A PTD INT FANT PT 1 Brett Favre qb 2005 36 15 16 372 607 3881 6.39 20 29 251.25 2 Vinny Testaverde qb 2000 37 14 16 328 590 3732 6.33 21 25 248.80 3 Bobby Hebert qb 1996 36 12 14 294 488 3152 6.46 22 25 232.50 4 Warren Moon qb 1986 30 3 15 256 488 3489 7.15 13 26 228.15 5 Tommy Kramer qb 1985 30 9 15 277 506 3522 6.96 19 26 231.50 6 Lynn Dickey qb 1983 34 13 16 289 484 4458 9.21 32 29 341.10 7 Joe Ferguson qb 1983 33 11 16 281 508 2995 5.90 26 25 237.55 8 Richard Todd qb 1983 30 8 16 308 518 3478 6.71 18 26 230.00 9 Brian Sipe qb 1981 32 8 16 313 567 3876 6.84 17 25 258.10 10 Lynn Dickey qb 1980 31 10 16 278 478 3529 7.38 15 25 218.55 11 Ken Stabler qb 1980 35 11 16 293 457 3202 7.01 13 28 181.90 Thus, 9 of 11 had more INT's than TD's (only Dickey and Ferguson in 1983 had more TD's)
In the following year, the TD' to INT ratio for each was:
2 Vinny Testaverde 2001 = 15/14
3 Bobby Hebert 1997 = DNP
4 Warren Moon 1987 = 21/18
5 Tommy Kramer 1986 = 24/10
6 Lynn Dickey 1984 = 25/19
7 Joe Ferguson 1984 = 12/17
8 Richard Todd 1984 = 11/19
9 Brian Sipe 1982 = 4/8 (only played 6 games)
10 Lynn Dickey 1981 = 17/15
11 Ken Stabler qb 1981 = 14/18
Thus, following a 25 INT season NONE of the 8 (not including the incomplete seasons) even threw for 20 INT's in the following season. Additionally:
5 threw more TD's than INT's
3 threw more INT's than TD's
I'm not sure what this says, but it does reveal that posting a large number of INT's in back to back seasons is unlikely (using 25 as a high number). It also reveals that while most bounced back to have better seasons, only Kramer in 1986 had a good TD/INT ratio in the following year.
I'm sticking with my 24/25 prediction for Brett this year, though a reduction in both numbers makes sense looking at the past examples of 25+ INT's.
NAME POS YR AGE EXP G CMP ATT PYD Y/A PTD INT FANT PT 1 Brett Favre qb 2005 36 15 16 372 607 3881 6.39 20 29 251.25 2 Vinny Testaverde qb 2000 37 14 16 328 590 3732 6.33 21 25 248.80 3 Bobby Hebert qb 1996 36 12 14 294 488 3152 6.46 22 25 232.50 4 Warren Moon qb 1986 30 3 15 256 488 3489 7.15 13 26 228.15 5 Tommy Kramer qb 1985 30 9 15 277 506 3522 6.96 19 26 231.50 6 Lynn Dickey qb 1983 34 13 16 289 484 4458 9.21 32 29 341.10 7 Joe Ferguson qb 1983 33 11 16 281 508 2995 5.90 26 25 237.55 8 Richard Todd qb 1983 30 8 16 308 518 3478 6.71 18 26 230.00 9 Brian Sipe qb 1981 32 8 16 313 567 3876 6.84 17 25 258.10 10 Lynn Dickey qb 1980 31 10 16 278 478 3529 7.38 15 25 218.55 11 Ken Stabler qb 1980 35 11 16 293 457 3202 7.01 13 28 181.90 Thus, 9 of 11 had more INT's than TD's (only Dickey and Ferguson in 1983 had more TD's)
In the following year, the TD' to INT ratio for each was:
2 Vinny Testaverde 2001 = 15/14
3 Bobby Hebert 1997 = DNP
4 Warren Moon 1987 = 21/18
5 Tommy Kramer 1986 = 24/10
6 Lynn Dickey 1984 = 25/19
7 Joe Ferguson 1984 = 12/17
8 Richard Todd 1984 = 11/19
9 Brian Sipe 1982 = 4/8 (only played 6 games)
10 Lynn Dickey 1981 = 17/15
11 Ken Stabler qb 1981 = 14/18
Thus, following a 25 INT season NONE of the 8 (not including the incomplete seasons) even threw for 20 INT's in the following season. Additionally:
5 threw more TD's than INT's
3 threw more INT's than TD's
I'm not sure what this says, but it does reveal that posting a large number of INT's in back to back seasons is unlikely (using 25 as a high number). It also reveals that while most bounced back to have better seasons, only Kramer in 1986 had a good TD/INT ratio in the following year.
I'm sticking with my 24/25 prediction for Brett this year, though a reduction in both numbers makes sense looking at the past examples of 25+ INT's.
Last edited by a moderator:
pigskinliquors
Dr. Parrothead
I'm in.
Jurb and Pig:
I would say if he gets pulled or injured but has more INTs than TDs at the time I lose (and vice versa).
Let us sort out verbage too.
I would be willing to add to my sig bar:
"Brett Favre was washed up two seasons ago and has not been good enough to be a starting QB in the NFL for at least that long."
I would say if he gets pulled or injured but has more INTs than TDs at the time I lose (and vice versa).
Let us sort out verbage too.
I would be willing to add to my sig bar:
"Brett Favre was washed up two seasons ago and has not been good enough to be a starting QB in the NFL for at least that long."
jurb26
Footballguy
I think your best bet is to hope that D plays a heck of a lot better.... and it might.
I think the D will be better at generating sacks and turnovers. Better against the pass and big passing plays in particular. And still soft agains the run with lots of missed tackles. But even with better D the only way to keep Favre's INTs in check is better playcalling and ball control. I expect the former but think the latter isn't in the cards with the O-line problems. With that said, he has had plenty of seasons with poor supporting cast where he threw more TDs than INTs. He needs WRs who run the routes and check out of them. They were starting guys off the practice squad with 1 day notice. That part will not happen again.
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
What happened to talking about what happens to Driver & co if Favre goes down?
Kleck.
Footballguy
I prefer realist.
at Rodgers being able to make this team better than Favre right now.
pigskinliquors
Dr. Parrothead
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I still believe it's a coin flip = a great sig bet. IF this is his last year, I hope that I'm wrong and that he posts more solid numbers. I also hope that IF it is his last season, that he announces it prior to the end of the year, so that at least Chicago and MN (SF & Seattle would also be great) can give him a retirement ceremony. It's been a blast watching him through the years!
jurb26
Footballguy
Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
Last edited by a moderator:
Every Packer offensive players' value goes down without Favre, as the other options are dismal. I for one am not sure Rogers will ever be chosen as a successor. I suspect they will bring in a veteran.
Kleck.
Footballguy
Two seasons ago as in 2004, a year in which Favre threw 30 TDs?
jurb26
Footballguy
This would be a sig that went up after this year. So 3 years after what yo are talking about.
Kleck.
Footballguy
I pretty much agree, and I too have my questions about Rodgers at the moment.Every Packer offensive players' value goes down without Favre, as the other options are dismal. I for one am not sure Rogers will ever be chosen as a successor. I suspect they will bring in a veteran.
Kleck.
Footballguy
Makes sense then, thanks.
Kleck.
Footballguy
Interesting. With none of the 8 throwing 20 or more the next season, we could see that change.I think Favre throwing 25+ INTs this year is about as likely as him throwing 13 or fewer. He's topped 20 INTs 5 times in his career, threw 15 or fewer 5 times, and in his almost 14 complete seasons as a starter has averaged 18 a year. With all the changes the past year and this, and if the running game doesn't get going for him, I don't think 20 INTs should be much of a surprize. I currently have him projected at 19, give or take 1 or 2, and I think he'll fall right into that. The one thing I'm happy to hear about this camp so far, and should help eliminate some of Favre's INTs, is that McCarthy has been really getting into Favre about the preventable INTs during 7-on-7 and 11-on-11 drills.
Kleck.
Footballguy
Pretty much. Basically all the throws where the football is often times turned into a volleyball.
Kleck.
Footballguy
Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
even more if you really believe the 4-12 season was all Favre's fault.Throw Rodgers in there from week 1 and Green Bay would have Reggie Bush right now. Throw Rodgers in now and give him all the snaps and 4-12 might be a gift this year, even with the easier schedule. For someone who seems to know about football, I would never had guessed you could be so off here. You must really be high on Rodgers or something.
Last edited by a moderator:
pigskinliquors
Dr. Parrothead
??? How would having Reggie Bush, and Rodgers with a season under his belt be worse than going 4-12 and watching Favre go through a season like he did last year??Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
Big Score
Footballguy
You weren't supposed to use logic pigskinliquors.??? How would having Reggie Bush, and Rodgers with a season under his belt be worse than going 4-12 and watching Favre go through a season like he did last year??Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
jurb26
Footballguy
You weren't supposed to use logic pigskinliquors.??? How would having Reggie Bush, and Rodgers with a season under his belt be worse than going 4-12 and watching Favre go through a season like he did last year??Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
Kleck.
Footballguy
I took jurb's post as him thinking Rodgers could have done better last year with the mess of injuries Green Bay had.Heading into 2006, assuming Rodgers was the starter all of last year, and having Reggie Bush plus an easier schedule, I believe they could be better than 4-12. But that would greatly depend on health, and I don't think it's a stretch by any means that Favre, even with the struggles last year, won't help this team improve from a 4-12 this year either.??? How would having Reggie Bush, and Rodgers with a season under his belt be worse than going 4-12 and watching Favre go through a season like he did last year??Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
Kleck.
Footballguy
Please explain.You weren't supposed to use logic pigskinliquors.??? How would having Reggie Bush, and Rodgers with a season under his belt be worse than going 4-12 and watching Favre go through a season like he did last year??Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
Kleck.
Footballguy
You too.TIAYou weren't supposed to use logic pigskinliquors.??? How would having Reggie Bush, and Rodgers with a season under his belt be worse than going 4-12 and watching Favre go through a season like he did last year??Cause 4-12 is so hard to improve on.I prefer realist.
jurb26
Footballguy
I never once said this. Not for last year or even this year coming up. What good is it to GB to go through a 4-12 season with Favre struggling heavily and sitting the "future QB?" I don't like Rodgers and never have. To not see what the guy can do is pretty dumb IMO though. Especially when a team is so out of it and the QB play is poor to begin with.
Kleck.
Footballguy
When you said the team would improve with Favre out, I had to assume that you believed Rodgers is better suitable at leading this team than Favre right now. Otherwise, I don't see how they improve.I must be in the minority since pigskin and Big Score agree. I certainly don't see it. I'd just like for someone to explain to me how this team improves with Rodgers as the starter right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
jurb26
Footballguy
You should take improve in this sense very loose. How much worse can it get than 4-12, lowest QB rating in the league for starters and 29 INTs? I think GB is a bad team. Nothing other than a total turn around on D will really change that this year IMO. Favre and GB simply can't afford costly turnovers like he made last year if that is the case. The O simply looks awful right now. Driver is a decent WR1, but other than that it's slim. No real RB, patched up Oline and a QB who forces things.I don't see Rodgers as better per say, but if the team is going 4-12, again why not give the 1st rounder some work and see what he has let alone give him so much needed experience?
Last edited by a moderator:
pigskinliquors
Dr. Parrothead
I have never thought that Rodgers would have been able to go in there and give the Packers more wins last year than Favre. Please read all my posts, as I can't imagine having said that. I personally believe that the Packers as an organization would be MUCH better off for their FUTURE had Rodgers been given the opportunity to play last year. IF he didn't pan out, they would know at least know that he isn't their future, and could have picked up Leinart this year if they thought he was a better option. IF Rodgers did pan out last year, they would feel a heck of a lot better getting him involved in additional rep's during practice, and in games right now. How (thinking about the franchise and its future) would going 2-14 and getting Bush AND having Rodgers with experience be better than going 4-12, with an aging Favre still implanted in the line-up, and Rodgers still holding a clipboard?
Edited to add; that Rodgers could not have done much worse. Read the first post of the followingthread, and let me know, how Favre led that team when they needed it most (he helped put them in situations to win, but today's version of Favre does not take the team on his shoulders and win games): LINK
FYI: I don't think the Packers are that far from being a good team, and good leadership at qb could put them over the hump. Rodgers this year isn't the answer, but with experience = who knows??
Last edited by a moderator:
Kleck.
Footballguy
This is better. I don't think it will take a total turn-around on D to help improve them, just players staying healthy will do wonders.
Keysersoze666
Footballguy
Hey Jurb, I've been around the boards long enough and read enough of your posts to know that you know football. I would simply add this to the conversation.
As a lifelong Packer fan, I'm not sure how many people outside the Packer "Clan" understand how much Favre has meant to us and the organization. We were the "Bengals" for the previous 15-20 years before the Wolfe-Holmgren-Favre-White 4-some rescued us from purgatory. What's ironic is how Favre's first miracle victory was against the Bengals and it's even weirder that I live in Ohio.
In those early days, we Packer fans got to watch a wild-eyed young QB, make Incredible play followed by Silly Play a lot. Even through the frustration of that, he slowly got better. He made throws that were not even on the charts for 90% of the QB's I'd ever seen play. He took chances that were not even on the charts for 90% of QB's I've ever seen play. More often than not the Chances benefited the team but often they did not. We learned to live with that for 2 reasons. He WAS the best chance we had to WIN in our lifetime since the late 60's ... AND ... he was literally the most exciting player the Packers had ever had.
Mike Holmgren OWNS the key, to this very DAY, that made Favre a 3-time MVP, and a legend. He understood HOW to get Favre to go though several progressions BEFORE he started to make things up. We all know the result. The Holmgren/Favre combo was synergy in action and the minute Mike left I knew we may never see that level of greatness again.
But even that's OK. Favre still did great things after Mike left and also did stupid things. The combination of Ray Rhodes and Mike Sherman NEVER had the "magic" it took to corral his gambler instincts. However, you can't discount a player who makes EVERY player on the team think thay have a CHANCE to win, no matter the circumstances. That ONE guy who can make a team feel that way is so rare in this league, that we as Packer fans, were willing to live with the gambles, and in my stupid little opinion it was worth EVERY second.
Most franchises would seriously consider looking at another QB, if you ONLY looked at last year's QB stats. We don't just look at ONE year. You and every Favre doubter out there have valid points based on JUST last year. But I personally don't care about just last year. Even if he is declining, even if he does take too many chances, I DON'T CARE! Our franchise is doing the right thing and allowing one of the greatest players in it's history to finish out. I don't care if it isn't perfect. I don't care if the backup QB has to wait. He's still in the top 3rd of QB's in this league, again in my stupid little opinion. I can't wait to see him play again.
I'll finish with one basic question to all serious football fans.
If you had a QB, who in 14 starting seasons with YOUR Favorite team:
Was a 3-time MVP
an 8-time Pro Bowler
was 3rd all-time in WINS by a QB
is 1st, 2nd or 3rd in almost all major passing catagories
had 12 (TWELVE) winning seasons, one 8-8 season and last year's 4-12
which in essence is 13 CONSECUTIVE non-losing seasons till last year ...
and has played in EVERY SINGLE F**king game since he became the starter, shattering the consecutive game record ...
would you be HAPPY if your team shrugged him aside after his FIRST losing season EVER when everyone BUT him got hurt?????
I'd only ask you guys to consider this question carefully and then understand that we Packer fans, in general, WANT him to play again for all the reasons above.
(To other Packer fans I didn't mean to speak for you all but hopefully you'll give me a bit of leeway here.)
As a lifelong Packer fan, I'm not sure how many people outside the Packer "Clan" understand how much Favre has meant to us and the organization. We were the "Bengals" for the previous 15-20 years before the Wolfe-Holmgren-Favre-White 4-some rescued us from purgatory. What's ironic is how Favre's first miracle victory was against the Bengals and it's even weirder that I live in Ohio.
In those early days, we Packer fans got to watch a wild-eyed young QB, make Incredible play followed by Silly Play a lot. Even through the frustration of that, he slowly got better. He made throws that were not even on the charts for 90% of the QB's I'd ever seen play. He took chances that were not even on the charts for 90% of QB's I've ever seen play. More often than not the Chances benefited the team but often they did not. We learned to live with that for 2 reasons. He WAS the best chance we had to WIN in our lifetime since the late 60's ... AND ... he was literally the most exciting player the Packers had ever had.
Mike Holmgren OWNS the key, to this very DAY, that made Favre a 3-time MVP, and a legend. He understood HOW to get Favre to go though several progressions BEFORE he started to make things up. We all know the result. The Holmgren/Favre combo was synergy in action and the minute Mike left I knew we may never see that level of greatness again.
But even that's OK. Favre still did great things after Mike left and also did stupid things. The combination of Ray Rhodes and Mike Sherman NEVER had the "magic" it took to corral his gambler instincts. However, you can't discount a player who makes EVERY player on the team think thay have a CHANCE to win, no matter the circumstances. That ONE guy who can make a team feel that way is so rare in this league, that we as Packer fans, were willing to live with the gambles, and in my stupid little opinion it was worth EVERY second.
Most franchises would seriously consider looking at another QB, if you ONLY looked at last year's QB stats. We don't just look at ONE year. You and every Favre doubter out there have valid points based on JUST last year. But I personally don't care about just last year. Even if he is declining, even if he does take too many chances, I DON'T CARE! Our franchise is doing the right thing and allowing one of the greatest players in it's history to finish out. I don't care if it isn't perfect. I don't care if the backup QB has to wait. He's still in the top 3rd of QB's in this league, again in my stupid little opinion. I can't wait to see him play again.
I'll finish with one basic question to all serious football fans.
If you had a QB, who in 14 starting seasons with YOUR Favorite team:
Was a 3-time MVP
an 8-time Pro Bowler
was 3rd all-time in WINS by a QB
is 1st, 2nd or 3rd in almost all major passing catagories
had 12 (TWELVE) winning seasons, one 8-8 season and last year's 4-12
which in essence is 13 CONSECUTIVE non-losing seasons till last year ...
and has played in EVERY SINGLE F**king game since he became the starter, shattering the consecutive game record ...
would you be HAPPY if your team shrugged him aside after his FIRST losing season EVER when everyone BUT him got hurt?????
I'd only ask you guys to consider this question carefully and then understand that we Packer fans, in general, WANT him to play again for all the reasons above.
(To other Packer fans I didn't mean to speak for you all but hopefully you'll give me a bit of leeway here.)
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
there are only 3 options to consider when thinking of those who think Favre is washed up:
1. they're stupid (or blind)
2. they know nothing about football
3. they didn't see one play of one game he played in last year
He was playing with like the 5th WR as #1, 5 RB as #1, 3rd or 4th TE as #1, and without his starting 2 guards from the year before and everyone hurt on the offensive line...
he had NO ONE playing around him... no one... no one else knew the plays, no one else knew what was going on...
quite frankly, Favre played one of his better seasons EVER last year, the only problem is that no one else had any clue what was happening because they didn't even have a basic knowledge of the playbook...
1. they're stupid (or blind)
2. they know nothing about football
3. they didn't see one play of one game he played in last year
He was playing with like the 5th WR as #1, 5 RB as #1, 3rd or 4th TE as #1, and without his starting 2 guards from the year before and everyone hurt on the offensive line...
he had NO ONE playing around him... no one... no one else knew the plays, no one else knew what was going on...
quite frankly, Favre played one of his better seasons EVER last year, the only problem is that no one else had any clue what was happening because they didn't even have a basic knowledge of the playbook...
Kleck.
Footballguy
I guess I didn't quite understand the earlier "???" post. My bad.For me, I don't believe in playing for the future and starting your #2 QB ahead of your #1 just so the #2 can gain experience. Play to win even if the season is lost. If the #2 is close to being as good, talented and ready as the #1 then I might reconsider, but all indications last year was that Rodgers was struggling in practice and showed little signs of being what they hoped he would be.
I have never thought that Rodgers would have been able to go in there and give the Packers more wins last year than Favre. Please read all my posts, as I can't imagine having said that. I personally believe that the Packers as an organization would be MUCH better off for their FUTURE had Rodgers been given the opportunity to play last year. IF he didn't pan out, they would know at least know that he isn't their future, and could have picked up Leinart this year if they thought he was a better option. IF Rodgers did pan out last year, they would feel a heck of a lot better getting him involved in additional rep's during practice, and in games right now. How (thinking about the franchise and its future) would going 2-14 and getting Bush AND having Rodgers with experience be better than going 4-12, with an aging Favre still implanted in the line-up, and Rodgers still holding a clipboard?
Edited to add; that Rodgers could not have done much worse. Read the first post of the followingthread, and let me know, how Favre led that team when they needed it most (he helped put them in situations to win, but today's version of Favre does not take the team on his shoulders and win games): LINK
FYI: I don't think the Packers are that far from being a good team, and good leadership at qb could put them over the hump. Rodgers this year isn't the answer, but with experience = who knows??
I don't really know what is best for a young QB between sitting and learning no matter what, or being thrown to the wolves to get experience. If Rodgers was looking good in practice I think he would have seen more time. Being thrown to the wolves does not always give a young inexperienced QB the proper kind of experience they need.
Good edit and FYI. I can't argue against those.
