What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Packers About to Reap What They Sow (1 Viewer)

As much as I've enjoyed watching Rodgers play, we Packer fans are about to live our worst nightmare scenario on a week when Favre throws 6 TDs. I've been wrong about Teddy Thompson and the gang on many things, but I and others were absolutely on the money when we noted that the rookie back-ups to Rodgers are the Packers achilles heel. If Rodgers is out for a long time and the rumored Culpepper deal doesn't come together, the season is over as of Week 4 and somebody's head will be on the chopping block.

 
1. How is that reaping what one sows?

2. There are a significant number of NFL teams without a good backup QB. How does the situation with Favre leaving make the Packers different from the other teams without a good backup QB when other teams are in the same situation?

 
Personally I don't understand having two rooke Qbs as your back ups... especially with a playoff caliber team. I guess they got used to #4 being behind center. Bonehead move

 
1. How is that reaping what one sows? 2. There are a significant number of NFL teams without a good backup QB. How does the situation with Favre leaving make the Packers different from the other teams without a good backup QB when other teams are in the same situation?
Actually, I can think of more than one instance where this applies in this situation but the main issue is that the Packers showed Favre the door and didn't prepare for a Rodgers injury despite common sense suggesting otherwise. The Packers aren't the Falcons or the Ravens. They have a team built to win and go deep in the playoffs but that won't happen with either of these rookie QBs. I have moved past the Packers getting rid of Favre but not putting in a contingency plan for Rodgers was too risky.
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.

 
I missed everything that happened this morning. Just catching up now. Did I see this right? Matt Flynn played ahead of Brohm? Or maybe Brohm is hurt? tia

 
Culpepper won't be the answer either. Face it - if Rodgers is down for any period of time, you're going to be up a creek without a paddle.

 
I missed everything that happened this morning. Just catching up now. Did I see this right? Matt Flynn played ahead of Brohm? Or maybe Brohm is hurt? tia
The only reason Brohm is still on the roster is because he was the 2nd round pick and Flynn was the 7th rounder.
 
I don't really fault for getting rid of Favre for Rodgers. Its not getting a quality backup behind Rodgers is where the Packers messed up.

 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?

 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
I didn't realize the Packers had a future Hall of Famer who had zero durability issues available as their starting QB.Oh wait ...
 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
True enough. At least they are not skipping a beat after losing their QB and are marching on towards another undefeated season.
 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
I didn't realize the Packers had a future Hall of Famer who had zero durability issues available as their starting QB.Oh wait ...
Exactly. Rodgers missed time last year and other years despite barely playing while Brady had played how many consecutive games? Plus they had Cassel who had been with the team a few years and knows the system, not two rookies....
 
What active QB now has the most consecutive games (of course no Brady)?

Was thinking Farve and Green Bay was thinking Rodgers can do it too.

 
Here they come the Favre lovers are coming back as Brett had 6 TDs and Rodgers might be hurt, and I say he might. Right now there is no word that Rodgers is out, but from this thread he is out for most of the season without seeing a doctor.

No one knows how well Flynn or Brohm will do if they become a starter. If the running game would get going I would have less of an issue with this. This offense still has a lot of playmakers on it and all the QB needs to do is get it to him. Matt Ryan has looked ok with a Falcons team that has less weapons.

Wish Brett would have played for the Green and Gold last year in the NFC championship. Oh wait he did do that but all be it the Bad Brett that had become common over the last couple playoff games and make mistakes to put the team in bad spots.

 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Everytime I see this I :unsure: That's like saying he is going to be as good as Favre based on last years Dallas game.

He has been injured exactly one time as a starter, and that was today. His other injury last year was a fluke and attributed to lack of being in playing shape.

He NEVER was hurt in college.

You guys crack me up.

That said, it definitely was a mistake and as I see it a big ego move on TT's part for not getting a veteran back-up in there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
I didn't realize the Packers had a future Hall of Famer who had zero durability issues available as their starting QB.Oh wait ...
Exactly. Rodgers missed time last year and other years despite barely playing while Brady had played how many consecutive games? Plus they had Cassel who had been with the team a few years and knows the system, not two rookies....
:goodposting:
 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
I didn't realize the Packers had a future Hall of Famer who had zero durability issues available as their starting QB.Oh wait ...
Exactly. Rodgers missed time last year and other years despite barely playing while Brady had played how many consecutive games? Plus they had Cassel who had been with the team a few years and knows the system, not two rookies....
:goodposting:
here's one I found in 30 seconds..link
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Everytime I see this I :goodposting:
And every time I see someone downplay Rogers' durability issues I :lmao: Guess we're even.

 
1. How is that reaping what one sows? 2. There are a significant number of NFL teams without a good backup QB. How does the situation with Favre leaving make the Packers different from the other teams without a good backup QB when other teams are in the same situation?
Do you have any clue as to how this went down with the Packers?Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy made the decision they didn't want Favre back. They made no effort to ask him back and all the media reports state they wanted him to retire. So, that is point one in showing reaping what they sow. Secondly, they decided to have Rodgers be the starter with TWO ROOKIES as his backup. That is point #2 in reaping what they sow.
 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
Let's compare the two shall we? The Patriots had Brady, who hadn't missed a game in seven years. And that is versus the Packers who had a QB who had played very limited time, yet had been injured twice despite that limited time. Hmmmmm, which one should be more worried about having a back up QB?
 
1. How is that reaping what one sows?

2. There are a significant number of NFL teams without a good backup QB. How does the situation with Favre leaving make the Packers different from the other teams without a good backup QB when other teams are in the same situation?
Actually, I can think of more than one instance where this applies in this situation but the main issue is that the Packers showed Favre the door and didn't prepare for a Rodgers injury despite common sense suggesting otherwise. The Packers aren't the Falcons or the Ravens. They have a team built to win and go deep in the playoffs but that won't happen with either of these rookie QBs. I have moved past the Packers getting rid of Favre but not putting in a contingency plan for Rodgers was too risky.
You mean the undefeated Ravens? I don't think Culpepper is the way to go for GB. Maybe someone like Harrington would work, I think Culpepper's ego would hurt more than his play would help.

 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
Let's compare the two shall we? The Patriots had Brady, who hadn't missed a game in seven years. And that is versus the Packers who had a QB who had played very limited time, yet had been injured twice despite that limited time. Hmmmmm, which one should be more worried about having a back up QB?
Unless the Patriots had some reason to think Brady was magically immune to injury, I'd think both teams should have been equally concerned about having an experienced backup.
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Can we quit with the injury prone thing.There is not enough info to really call him that either.The sample size is simply much too small.The Packers are fortunate they are not all knee jerk reaction people running the show who think the season is over after 4 games or that a bad game or two by Rodgers and one very good game by Favre signals the end of the world.
 
I don't really fault for getting rid of Favre for Rodgers. Its not getting a quality backup behind Rodgers is where the Packers messed up.
ding ding ding...we have a winner.But some people will use this (4 weeks in mind you) for saying "i told you so".They were noticably quiet the first 2 weeks...and even last week as Favre sucked against SD.
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Everytime I see this I :excited: That's like saying he is going to be as good as Favre based on last years Dallas game.

He has been injured exactly one time as a starter, and that was today. His other injury last year was a fluke and attributed to lack of being in playing shape.

He NEVER was hurt in college.

You guys crack me up.

That said, it definitely was a mistake and as I see it a big ego move on TT's part for not getting a veteran back-up in there.
I don't think it was ego not getting a veteran in there....it was fear of losing Flynn or Brohm if they tried putting them on the practice squad.
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Everytime I see this I :excited:
And every time I see someone downplay Rogers' durability issues I :rolleyes: Guess we're even.
You think getting hurt one time in a game before today is enough info to go on and call him injury prone?
 
1. How is that reaping what one sows? 2. There are a significant number of NFL teams without a good backup QB. How does the situation with Favre leaving make the Packers different from the other teams without a good backup QB when other teams are in the same situation?
Do you have any clue as to how this went down with the Packers?Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy made the decision they didn't want Favre back. They made no effort to ask him back and all the media reports state they wanted him to retire. So, that is point one in showing reaping what they sow. Secondly, they decided to have Rodgers be the starter with TWO ROOKIES as his backup. That is point #2 in reaping what they sow.
Ted and Mike decided they were not going to beg him.That they were ready to go on with Aaron if Favre retired.Ummm...McCarthy did ask him several times...he talked to him weekly during the offseason.When Favre called several times after retirement they were ready to take him back right then and there...each time he would not commit.Media reports claiming they wanted him to retire...great.How about the media reports claiming he wanted to be traded last year...or shortly after retirement. I guess we should ignore those too right?And its really point 1 in reaping what they sow...not having a veteran backup.
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Everytime I see this I :shrug:
And every time I see someone downplay Rogers' durability issues I :lmao: Guess we're even.
You think getting hurt one time in a game before today is enough info to go on and call him injury prone?
Please have some type of clue before you post stuff like this. Rodgers in his limited time before today was hurt more than ONE time.
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Everytime I see this I :shrug:
And every time I see someone downplay Rogers' durability issues I :lmao: Guess we're even.
You think getting hurt one time in a game before today is enough info to go on and call him injury prone?
Please have some type of clue before you post stuff like this. Rodgers in his limited time before today was hurt more than ONE time.
Please learn to read before trying to insult me not having a clue.He was hurt in the Pats game. A broken foot when a guy landed on it (hardly something to cause someone to be "injury prone")...oh and he finished that game.

He was not hurt in the Dallas game last year...he was hurt in the practices the week after.

HTH

 
The Packers have a SB contender team ready to go with Favre. They got sensitive, couldn't swallow ego, and went with a 1st time starter at QB. With no backup. Rodgers has shown he's prone to injury. He's taken 50 snaps and been injured or on IR twice.

Sorry, they should have kept Favre, kept Rodgers, and made him sit another year. If Favre gets hurt, you have Rodgers. Favre clearly can still play.

Can anyone seriously tell me the Packers were better off without Favre? Rodgers had never started in the NFL. Come on. They were WORSE off the day they traded Brett. Long term? They could have started Rodgers next year. He's not going anywhere. And if they liked him this much, extend him, they had the cap room.

It was ego. Yes Favre changed his mind, but you have a team that can win a SB. You deal with egos. You don't turn a team primed for a SB over to a 1st time starter who's shown he's made of glass. And then to have two backups, who've never taken a snap in the NFL. Needlessly risky, with a roster loaded with talent. Why gamble? There was no need. It was foolish.

And I'm not a Packer fan, I don't like Brett Favre, but this one is pretty easy to call.

 
1. How is that reaping what one sows? 2. There are a significant number of NFL teams without a good backup QB. How does the situation with Favre leaving make the Packers different from the other teams without a good backup QB when other teams are in the same situation?
Do you have any clue as to how this went down with the Packers?Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy made the decision they didn't want Favre back. They made no effort to ask him back and all the media reports state they wanted him to retire. So, that is point one in showing reaping what they sow. Secondly, they decided to have Rodgers be the starter with TWO ROOKIES as his backup. That is point #2 in reaping what they sow.
Ted and Mike decided they were not going to beg him.That they were ready to go on with Aaron if Favre retired.Ummm...McCarthy did ask him several times...he talked to him weekly during the offseason.When Favre called several times after retirement they were ready to take him back right then and there...each time he would not commit.Media reports claiming they wanted him to retire...great.How about the media reports claiming he wanted to be traded last year...or shortly after retirement. I guess we should ignore those too right?And its really point 1 in reaping what they sow...not having a veteran backup.
Ummm...According to Favre, McCarthy and TT never contacted him to ask him back. They didn't beg him to come back because THEY DID NOT WANT HIM BACK. This is common knowledge if you read any article from experts from the NFL included a great interview from ESPN with Favre. You have shown from the beginning of this you will not understand this and even Joe B. has called you out.
 
The Packers have a SB contender team ready to go with Favre. They got sensitive, couldn't swallow ego, and went with a 1st time starter at QB. With no backup. Rodgers has shown he's prone to injury. He's taken 50 snaps and been injured or on IR twice. Sorry, they should have kept Favre, kept Rodgers, and made him sit another year. If Favre gets hurt, you have Rodgers. Favre clearly can still play. Can anyone seriously tell me the Packers were better off without Favre? Rodgers had never started in the NFL. Come on. They were WORSE off the day they traded Brett. Long term? They could have started Rodgers next year. He's not going anywhere. And if they liked him this much, extend him, they had the cap room. It was ego. Yes Favre changed his mind, but you have a team that can win a SB. You deal with egos. You don't turn a team primed for a SB over to a 1st time starter who's shown he's made of glass. And then to have two backups, who've never taken a snap in the NFL. Needlessly risky, with a roster loaded with talent. Why gamble? There was no need. It was foolish.And I'm not a Packer fan, I don't like Brett Favre, but this one is pretty easy to call.
As with the 9 million other threads about this in the past...it was not just about THIS year.
 
Please learn to read before trying to insult me not having a clue.He was hurt in the Pats game. A broken foot when a guy landed on it (hardly something to cause someone to be "injury prone")...oh and he finished that game.He was not hurt in the Dallas game last year...he was hurt in the practices the week after.HTH
He's never started a game in the NFL. And he's been hurt once, and on IR the other time. Seriously? Never started, but hurt twice once for the year. That's not injury prone? What do you call it?Favre has STARTED and PLAYED 200+ games and never missed a game. Rodgers starts 0 games, and gets hurt/IR twice. Come on. The guy has injury issues. Maybe it's a fluke. But now he's hurt again? You get hit in the NFL, some guys can't take the hits. End of story. While I wouldn't say Rodgers will be an injury mess his entire career, his track record so far isn't great.
 
Sandman - Did you break your typing fingers rushing to start this awesome thread or did you perhaps break your arm patting yourself on the back for this amazing wisdom? I wonder what it would take for Thompson to get the benefit of the doubt just once after the incredible job he's done to date?
he's done a great job with the team but leaving that glaring weakness was a tremendous risk. Do you think otherwise?
Not sure...ask the Patriots.
I didn't realize the Packers had a future Hall of Famer who had zero durability issues available as their starting QB.Oh wait ...
Exactly. Rodgers missed time last year and other years despite barely playing while Brady had played how many consecutive games? Plus they had Cassel who had been with the team a few years and knows the system, not two rookies....
:shrug:
Seriously? You don't remember Rodgers breaking his ankle in mop-up time when the Patriots smoked the Packers in 2006 at Lambeau? He was done for the year after that. Won't bother with the link unless you really want one.
 
It's too early to make any definitive predictions about what's going to happen but the decision to kick Favre out the door in favor of an inexperienced, injury-prone QB isn't looking too good today, that's for sure. The Packers are fortunate they play in arguably the worst division in the league, but that won't be of much help if Rodgers misses extensive time.
Everytime I see this I :shrug:
And every time I see someone downplay Rogers' durability issues I :lmao: Guess we're even.
You think getting hurt one time in a game before today is enough info to go on and call him injury prone?
Please have some type of clue before you post stuff like this. Rodgers in his limited time before today was hurt more than ONE time.
Please learn to read before trying to insult me not having a clue.He was hurt in the Pats game. A broken foot when a guy landed on it (hardly something to cause someone to be "injury prone")...oh and he finished that game.

He was not hurt in the Dallas game last year...he was hurt in the practices the week after.

HTH
Thanks for clarifying that.....with Rodgers we don't have to worry about getting hurt during game we also have to worry about him getting hurt during practices.
 
1. How is that reaping what one sows? 2. There are a significant number of NFL teams without a good backup QB. How does the situation with Favre leaving make the Packers different from the other teams without a good backup QB when other teams are in the same situation?
Do you have any clue as to how this went down with the Packers?Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy made the decision they didn't want Favre back. They made no effort to ask him back and all the media reports state they wanted him to retire. So, that is point one in showing reaping what they sow. Secondly, they decided to have Rodgers be the starter with TWO ROOKIES as his backup. That is point #2 in reaping what they sow.
Ted and Mike decided they were not going to beg him.That they were ready to go on with Aaron if Favre retired.Ummm...McCarthy did ask him several times...he talked to him weekly during the offseason.When Favre called several times after retirement they were ready to take him back right then and there...each time he would not commit.Media reports claiming they wanted him to retire...great.How about the media reports claiming he wanted to be traded last year...or shortly after retirement. I guess we should ignore those too right?And its really point 1 in reaping what they sow...not having a veteran backup.
Ummm...According to Favre, McCarthy and TT never contacted him to ask him back. They didn't beg him to come back because THEY DID NOT WANT HIM BACK. This is common knowledge if you read any article from experts from the NFL included a great interview from ESPN with Favre. You have shown from the beginning of this you will not understand this and even Joe B. has called you out.
Wow..."ACCORDING TO FAVRE"...and when did he ever claim McC did not call him.True...they did not beg him...nor should they have.McCarthy let it be known they wanted him back. But they did not call and massage his ego that much.They needed a decision...he was not willing to commit then so he retired. he then tried several times to come back, they were ready to take him, he still could not commit.Please show me one thing I said that was not true.I don't recall Favre ever claiming that McC did not ask him to come back...it revolved around he and his family claiming they did not do enough and TT did not ask him but not about McCarthy.Way to bring up what Joe B. supposedly did though...good one. :shrug:
 
Please learn to read before trying to insult me not having a clue.He was hurt in the Pats game. A broken foot when a guy landed on it (hardly something to cause someone to be "injury prone")...oh and he finished that game.He was not hurt in the Dallas game last year...he was hurt in the practices the week after.HTH
He's never started a game in the NFL. And he's been hurt once, and on IR the other time. Seriously? Never started, but hurt twice once for the year. That's not injury prone? What do you call it?Favre has STARTED and PLAYED 200+ games and never missed a game. Rodgers starts 0 games, and gets hurt/IR twice. Come on. The guy has injury issues. Maybe it's a fluke. But now he's hurt again? You get hit in the NFL, some guys can't take the hits. End of story. While I wouldn't say Rodgers will be an injury mess his entire career, his track record so far isn't great.
I call it too small of a sample size and two completely different injuries.Its not like he has an issue with a knee or a hammy that just is not ever getting better.And he was IRed 2 years ago after a guy landed on his foot and broke it...and he finished the freakin game.He was never hurt in college...rarely has had any other injuries in his life.Yes...you get hit in the NFL. One time it landed him on the IR. Once.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top