What's new
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!

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

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8351984#

You cannot possibly believe Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance at winning in 2008 than Brett Favre. If you do, you are the dumbest general manager in the history of professional sports. I don't believe you're that stupid.

Sincerely,

Jason Whitlock
I think it is a GMs duty to look at what is best for the franchise not only for 2008 but long term. Critics ignore the salary cap implications of Brett Favre 10 M dollar contract. It is not only about replacing Favre with Rodgers in 2008. It is also about having the extra money to re-sign players like Greg Jennings, Kampman and other players that deserve it. It’s about making your team a contender for the next several years. Besides if you are unlucky to lose several key players on defense to injury, the chances are you are not going to get to the SB in 2008 with or without Favre.

 
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8351984#

You cannot possibly believe Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance at winning in 2008 than Brett Favre. If you do, you are the dumbest general manager in the history of professional sports. I don't believe you're that stupid.

Sincerely,

Jason Whitlock
I think it is a GMs duty to look at what is best for the franchise not only for 2008 but long term. Critics ignore the salary cap implications of Brett Favre 10 M dollar contract. It is not only about replacing Favre with Rodgers in 2008. It is also about having the extra money to re-sign players like Greg Jennings, Kampman and other players that deserve it. It’s about making your team a contender for the next several years. Besides if you are unlucky to lose several key players on defense to injury, the chances are you are not going to get to the SB in 2008 with or without Favre.
They were 24M UNDER the cap with Favre's contract. They are still well under the cap. It was not a money issue. And Jennings/Kampman are locked up for 08 and 09. Favre's 10mil salary would have no effect on them signing anyone. So why ever try to win a SB? Scared of injuries? It's amazing how teams try to win depsite the fact it's almost pointless because "injuries can happen".

They could have kept Favre, sat Rodgers, and it wouldn't have hurt them in 08, or 2009, or 2010. People seem to be making excuses for TT. He had enough of Favre. Plain and simple. He promoted Rodgers, drafted two QBs, it was done.

 
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8351984#

You cannot possibly believe Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance at winning in 2008 than Brett Favre. If you do, you are the dumbest general manager in the history of professional sports. I don't believe you're that stupid.

Sincerely,

Jason Whitlock
I think it is a GMs duty to look at what is best for the franchise not only for 2008 but long term. Critics ignore the salary cap implications of Brett Favre 10 M dollar contract. It is not only about replacing Favre with Rodgers in 2008. It is also about having the extra money to re-sign players like Greg Jennings, Kampman and other players that deserve it. It’s about making your team a contender for the next several years. Besides if you are unlucky to lose several key players on defense to injury, the chances are you are not going to get to the SB in 2008 with or without Favre.
People seem to be making excuses for TT. He had enough of Favre. Plain and simple. He promoted Rodgers, drafted two QBs, it was done.
Not as many as those making excuses for Favre.
 
Sorry I am pretty much done with this thread. Everyone is still just saying the same thing over and over that we have been saying since last May/June. And for those who are pro-TT and anti-Favre, I just can't listen to your rants anymore without wanting to jump out of my window. Maybe I am wrong (and time will tell), but I have yet to see what I consider a logical arguement to running Favre out of town. And no, I do not consider trying to figure out what you have in a draft pick an acceptable solution to replacing Favre. I consider the acceptable solution to be keeping Favre and dealing with any unproven draft pick at a later time, whether that be signing Rodgers to an extension, or trading him for another draft pick to be the next Favre replacement along the lines of Hasselbeck, Brooks, O'sullivan, etc.... I am still 100% sure that TT made one of the worst moves in all of sports history (not just NFL history) by running Favre out of town. Only time will tell if: 1. that is correct. 2. how much of a role each side had in this situation3. what would have been best for Green Bay's future (this could take several years of debate). -----------------------However, I think think it is safe to say that this is the ABSOLUTELY FIRST TIME a hall of fame, face of the franchise type player has been run out of town IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING one of the best years of his career. Normally, these types of players are only pushed out due to injury or extreme relapses in physical ability. This was absolutely not the case with Favre.
Im sorry...calling the trade of a 38 year old QB with a penchant for game changing INTs as well as the TDs...the worst move in all of sports history is just awful IMO.Its not even the worst move in Packer history much less NFL.Hershall Walker anyone? The trade by NO to get Ricky Williams?For the Packers...the Hadl trade? Tony Mandarich?
 
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8351984#

You cannot possibly believe Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance at winning in 2008 than Brett Favre. If you do, you are the dumbest general manager in the history of professional sports. I don't believe you're that stupid.

Sincerely,

Jason Whitlock
I think it is a GMs duty to look at what is best for the franchise not only for 2008 but long term. Critics ignore the salary cap implications of Brett Favre 10 M dollar contract. It is not only about replacing Favre with Rodgers in 2008. It is also about having the extra money to re-sign players like Greg Jennings, Kampman and other players that deserve it. It’s about making your team a contender for the next several years. Besides if you are unlucky to lose several key players on defense to injury, the chances are you are not going to get to the SB in 2008 with or without Favre.
They were 24M UNDER the cap with Favre's contract. They are still well under the cap. It was not a money issue. And Jennings/Kampman are locked up for 08 and 09. Favre's 10mil salary would have no effect on them signing anyone. So why ever try to win a SB? Scared of injuries? It's amazing how teams try to win depsite the fact it's almost pointless because "injuries can happen".

They could have kept Favre, sat Rodgers, and it wouldn't have hurt them in 08, or 2009, or 2010. People seem to be making excuses for TT. He had enough of Favre. Plain and simple. He promoted Rodgers, drafted two QBs, it was done.
You simply cannot factually claim it would nto hurt them in 2009 or 2010...you can't.You ahve no clue what Rodgers would do...what lessinging his reps and those of the rookies would do.

Oh...and TT did not draft 2 QBs until after Favre had retired and again said he was not coming back before the draft. So quit acting as if they did that after telling Favre he could never come back.

 
Okay, I have remained scarce on this topic since the season started.

I think that Sho is right about a couple things. For one, I did not and do not really believe the Packers will be a likely contender for the SB either this year or next year with ANY QB in the league. There are too many holes. But Favre probably gave them the best CHANCE of doing that one of those years they are likely to see in the next 5.

I mostly feel about the Favre situation now like I did at the time.

What would have been best for the franchise would have been to have kept both QBs and probably let Favre start this season (have competition but I believe Favre wins any fair one at this point in Rodgers' career). To do this, I would have forced Favre to agree to play two years and restructure his contract so it was little for this year and a bunch he would lose if he retired again without playing a second season. If Favre would not do that, trade him.

When Rodgers became a restricted or unrestricted free agent I would see what his market value was and try to keep him if possible.

So with all of that said, I would like to agree with the OP that egos got in the way but still do not believe that the way it turned out was in the long term good of the franchise. Unless perhaps the Jets pick is an early #2 and it gets used wisely.

I agree with both OP and Sho that going into the season without a decent backup was shortsighted. Going to the playoffs and getting that experience is too important to risk. For crying out loud, they could have taken Pennington back in the trade for free.

Sure, they then would have had to put someone on practice squad, but I am not sure losing one of the two would be all that bad (e.g., 7th roundpick?).

Totally sick of all the TT defenders. Attributing the team's success to one individual is as foolish as to deny he had any role in it. He clearly has made mistakes (e.g., sitll not liking the Harrell pick). He clearly has improved the team after Sherman's disasterous tenure (regression to the mean and Millen being under contract somewhere else vitually assured this). Only time will tell how this fares with Favre, but right nor I still think it was a mistake. The consequences of keeping Favre and Rodgers both were not as great as going in with 2 rookies as QB2 and QB3. TT is way to fond of his own picks.

-OOK!

 
Easy answer here.....Because Favre and his agent were beginning to realize that the Packers were moving on with out him. As Joe B. did and I need to on this.....I'm done with you. TT made his bed with Rodgers and I hope it works out for him.
They moved on without him in April...because he retired...because he more than once said he was not going to come back?Putting that on TT?For moving on without him after he kept saying he was done?Wow....just wow.
Ummmmmm..............NO....they had all the opportunity in the world to have both Brett and Rodgers on the team.... TT chose not to do that, and it was clearly a TERRIBLE move.... turned it into a soap opera instead of being a general manager who best manages the resourses of the team....He screwed up HUGE.... If you live you life by logic instead of emotion, you don't make mistakes like that....
The point was made that they showed they moved on during the draft.Umm...of course they did...he retired...he said several times before the draft that he was not coming back.Why would they not move on at this point.And Favre had all the opportunity in the world to come back before June...before he was told it was no longer and option...and each time, he could not commit to it.How was it a "clearly" terrible move?Because the team is 2-2?Logic dictated the move...emotion dictated holding on to a 38 year old QB and building a team around him because he was a 3 time MVP.
You keep forgetting the favre isn't retired... when he decided to play, he gave the pack first crack at retaining him, that was their window, that was their chance, and they chose to stick by their promise to some young stiff while letting go arguably the greatest player in franchise history.
 
Easy answer here.....Because Favre and his agent were beginning to realize that the Packers were moving on with out him. As Joe B. did and I need to on this.....I'm done with you. TT made his bed with Rodgers and I hope it works out for him.
They moved on without him in April...because he retired...because he more than once said he was not going to come back?Putting that on TT?For moving on without him after he kept saying he was done?Wow....just wow.
Ummmmmm..............NO....they had all the opportunity in the world to have both Brett and Rodgers on the team.... TT chose not to do that, and it was clearly a TERRIBLE move.... turned it into a soap opera instead of being a general manager who best manages the resourses of the team....He screwed up HUGE.... If you live you life by logic instead of emotion, you don't make mistakes like that....
The point was made that they showed they moved on during the draft.Umm...of course they did...he retired...he said several times before the draft that he was not coming back.Why would they not move on at this point.And Favre had all the opportunity in the world to come back before June...before he was told it was no longer and option...and each time, he could not commit to it.How was it a "clearly" terrible move?Because the team is 2-2?Logic dictated the move...emotion dictated holding on to a 38 year old QB and building a team around him because he was a 3 time MVP.
You keep forgetting the favre isn't retired... when he decided to play, he gave the pack first crack at retaining him, that was their window, that was their chance, and they chose to stick by their promise to some young stiff while letting go arguably the greatest player in franchise history.
Yup...gave them that crack nearly in July. After drafting 2 QBs and preparing without him. After several times he said he might want to come back only said he was not going to commit.Yup...Rodgers is just some stiff right.Thanks for showing that you are not worth the time to try discussing this topic with any longer. You jumped in to a conversation about a specific time and my point about that time period remains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry I am pretty much done with this thread. Everyone is still just saying the same thing over and over that we have been saying since last May/June. And for those who are pro-TT and anti-Favre, I just can't listen to your rants anymore without wanting to jump out of my window. Maybe I am wrong (and time will tell), but I have yet to see what I consider a logical arguement to running Favre out of town. And no, I do not consider trying to figure out what you have in a draft pick an acceptable solution to replacing Favre. I consider the acceptable solution to be keeping Favre and dealing with any unproven draft pick at a later time, whether that be signing Rodgers to an extension, or trading him for another draft pick to be the next Favre replacement along the lines of Hasselbeck, Brooks, O'sullivan, etc....

I am still 100% sure that TT made one of the worst moves in all of sports history (not just NFL history) by running Favre out of town. Only time will tell if:

1. that is correct.

2. how much of a role each side had in this situation

3. what would have been best for Green Bay's future (this could take several years of debate).

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

However, I think think it is safe to say that this is the ABSOLUTELY FIRST TIME a hall of fame, face of the franchise type player has been run out of town IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING one of the best years of his career. Normally, these types of players are only pushed out due to injury or extreme relapses in physical ability. This was absolutely not the case with Favre.
Im sorry...calling the trade of a 38 year old QB with a penchant for game changing INTs as well as the TDs...the worst move in all of sports history is just awful IMO.Its not even the worst move in Packer history much less NFL.

Hershall Walker anyone? The trade by NO to get Ricky Williams?

For the Packers...the Hadl trade? Tony Mandarich?
:wall:
 
Okay, I have remained scarce on this topic since the season started.

I think that Sho is right about a couple things. For one, I did not and do not really believe the Packers will be a likely contender for the SB either this year or next year with ANY QB in the league. There are too many holes. But Favre probably gave them the best CHANCE of doing that one of those years they are likely to see in the next 5.

I mostly feel about the Favre situation now like I did at the time.

What would have been best for the franchise would have been to have kept both QBs and probably let Favre start this season (have competition but I believe Favre wins any fair one at this point in Rodgers' career). To do this, I would have forced Favre to agree to play two years and restructure his contract so it was little for this year and a bunch he would lose if he retired again without playing a second season. If Favre would not do that, trade him.

When Rodgers became a restricted or unrestricted free agent I would see what his market value was and try to keep him if possible.

So with all of that said, I would like to agree with the OP that egos got in the way but still do not believe that the way it turned out was in the long term good of the franchise. Unless perhaps the Jets pick is an early #2 and it gets used wisely.

I agree with both OP and Sho that going into the season without a decent backup was shortsighted. Going to the playoffs and getting that experience is too important to risk. For crying out loud, they could have taken Pennington back in the trade for free.

Sure, they then would have had to put someone on practice squad, but I am not sure losing one of the two would be all that bad (e.g., 7th roundpick?).

Totally sick of all the TT defenders. Attributing the team's success to one individual is as foolish as to deny he had any role in it. He clearly has made mistakes (e.g., sitll not liking the Harrell pick). He clearly has improved the team after Sherman's disasterous tenure (regression to the mean and Millen being under contract somewhere else vitually assured this). Only time will tell how this fares with Favre, but right nor I still think it was a mistake. The consequences of keeping Favre and Rodgers both were not as great as going in with 2 rookies as QB2 and QB3. TT is way to fond of his own picks.

-OOK!
:wall: Especially the bolded part.

 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :goodposting: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :loco: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
 
The Packers are not a very good team. That's the problem. Would we be better with Brett? I think so. There's something to say for leadership. Aaron's not one and I'm not sure he'll grow into one. I hope so. But I just don't feel any magic like before. Brett could always keep us in a game. Watching today, I just knew we were going to lose from the first play, which was a long completion to White.

 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :goodposting: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. ;) I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
Seriously Phase- you need to turn the tool factor WAY down and stop being a major d-bagSho is 100% correct
 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. ;) I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
Seriously Phase- you need to turn the tool factor WAY down and stop being a major d-bagSho is 100% correct
Insults down?
 
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :rolleyes: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
Seriously Phase- you need to turn the tool factor WAY down and stop being a major d-bagSho is 100% correct
Relax, boys. Sho has proven that he is a blind supporter of TT and even Joe B. has acknowledged that. The team is 2-3 and not playing well and I am not a TT supporter. Isn't calling someone a d-bag reportable?
 
Warriors Forever said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
teamroc said:
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :coffee: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
Seriously Phase- you need to turn the tool factor WAY down and stop being a major d-bagSho is 100% correct
:coffee:
 
GB @ SEA

IND @ GB

Bye

GB @ TEN

GB @ MIN

CIN @ NYJ

NYJ @ OAK

KC @ NYJ

NYJ @ BUF

STL @ NYJ

The heat will be turned up a few notches in Green Bay for Ted in the next few weeks.

 
Phase of the Game said:
Warriors Forever said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
teamroc said:
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :shrug: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
Seriously Phase- you need to turn the tool factor WAY down and stop being a major d-bagSho is 100% correct
Relax, boys. Sho has proven that he is a blind supporter of TT and even Joe B. has acknowledged that. The team is 2-3 and not playing well and I am not a TT supporter. Isn't calling someone a d-bag reportable?
ooooooooooo going to go tell mommy? Please. Wouldn't be the first time. Would just confirm my accusation on you anyways
 
CaptainObvious said:
teamroc said:
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
Odd bump.Rodgers goes for 313 and 3 TDs with 1 pick.
He doesn't understand the aphorism in the first place.
Seriously.I mean, it was a vintage later-year Favre performance. Just enough to give us hope, and then a game killing, soul crushing interception to give the game away. Favre/Rodgers is the least of this teams problems...
 
Phase of the Game said:
Warriors Forever said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
teamroc said:
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :rolleyes: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
Seriously Phase- you need to turn the tool factor WAY down and stop being a major d-bagSho is 100% correct
Relax, boys. Sho has proven that he is a blind supporter of TT and even Joe B. has acknowledged that. The team is 2-3 and not playing well and I am not a TT supporter. Isn't calling someone a d-bag reportable?
ooooooooooo going to go tell mommy? Please. Wouldn't be the first time. Would just confirm my accusation on you anyways
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
Sandeman said:
The Packers are not a very good team. That's the problem. Would we be better with Brett? I think so. There's something to say for leadership. Aaron's not one and I'm not sure he'll grow into one. I hope so. But I just don't feel any magic like before. Brett could always keep us in a game. Watching today, I just knew we were going to lose from the first play, which was a long completion to White.
Thus far, one of the biggest bits of praise he has gotten from his coaches and teammates is on his leadership.So not sure where you are getting that he is not a leader?Brett could usually keep us in a game...but he also cost a few as well. Lets not act as if he was perfect people.So, the defense was what first led you to believe the team would lose? yet you call Rodgers not a leader and that Favre always kept them in games?Would Favre have kept White from catching that ball, or the other 100 or so yards he had?
 
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
teamroc said:
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
How?This game was not lost by not having a backup QB.Defense, penalties, missed FGs, and one bad INT sealed the deal.Would Favre have won it? I don't know.Would Favre have thrown that same kind of INT? I don't know that either.
After 5 games the Packers have lost the same number of games they did last year during the regular season. Spin that one, Ace.
After 5 games, the Packer defense has given up 32 more points than through 5 games last season.After 5 games, the Packers have probably missed as many snaps from starters as they did all of last season.After 5 games, the Packers are one of the most penalized teams in the league...I don't think they were near this high last year (on defense, yes...but not the offensive penalties).Again...this game was not lost by not having a backup QB. The title of this thread was about not having a backup...the post I replied to was about that. But you jumped in with yet another argument that really had nothing to do with the posts in order to say I am spinning something....so, do you really have anything you want to add to the thread...or just more backhanded insults?
Insults??? I didn't insult you so man up and deal with it. :towelwave: I see you are falling back on excuses. I thought the sign of a good coach and GM was that they had enough depth to be prepared for injuries since every team in the NFL has to deal with injuries. Oh, and maybe if we had some depth at QB Rodgers could have sat today to help get that shoulder healthy. Come up with every excuse you can because the Packers have already lost the same number of games as they did last year and that number is very likely to increase.
So the "spin that one Ace" and "TT lover" in another thread were meant as compliments huh? Hence, backhanded insults.You have been going on and on with your childish rants in your replies to me today, rarely bringing anythingn to these threads.Excuses? Its called the reason for their record. There is more to it than just not having Favre.The defense has not been as good this year as last, they were lucky last year with the injuries not really hurting them much, this year the defense has been hit big time. They are taking alot of dumb penalties.Yes, part of that is the coaches responsibility and McCarthy needs to take alot of the blame here too. As does TT. As I have said numerous times, I wish they would have signed Corey Williams during the season last year.Thats great...Rodgers could have sat...but they may have been beaten even worse. Was Culpepper going to win that one for them? Hah!!! Rodgers, despite the INT, performed pretty well most of that game.And I don't know many who thought they would again go 13-3 anyway, so their losses at this point is pretty pointless to just sit and worry about. Yes, it sucks to lose the last 3 games and they have alot to work on to put themselves in position to go forward and make the playoffs.
Do you need someone to send you some flowers?
Id settle for you being able to have a civil mature discussion...but I don't see that happening any time soon.
 
GordonGekko said:
If I see one more aching man-gina in this thread, someone might need to call some paramedics. It's very rare for any organization, sports or otherwise, to see the true results of any major move for 3-5 years after the fact. What anyone would consider a "major move" is subjective, I'd like to think ushering out a Hall Of Fame legacy QB off your roster would classify as one. 1) Let's actually see Rodgers start for a couple of seasons before everyone breaks out the noose and rope. For all anyone knows, he could lead Green Bay to multiple Super Bowls during his tenure there. Or he could blow out his knee or become a crack addict. No one knows how long Favre will last either. He could take a shot to the head to end his career, would a draft pick be a nice coup for a few games of a player who got carted out of the game?2) There is a difference between Rodger's impact on the team and the rest of the roster's impact on the team. Both are important but people shouldn't mistake the two. Favre was just as reliant on Reggie White and Antonio Freeman and Frank Winters and LeRoy Butler to do their jobs and make key plays to win. Football is a team sport. The failure of the Packers and failures of Favre and Rodgers individually are not mutually exclusive. 3) The Packers will receive a draft pick for Favre. For anyone knows, he will be a bust. Or he will be a perennial All Pro and potential Hall Of Famer. That draft pick is an essential part of the trade and it's simply too soon to evaluate that pick's worth. 4) Historically, knee jerk reactions on high level trades or executive decisions are a waste of time. Trades have to be seen across the bigger picture. Mario Williams looked like a bad pick to many. Before the kid even took a snap. He was trashed in the press and reporters in his grill and executives for the Texans were crucified for the move. The Giants were crucified for the Eli Manning trade. They gave up Phillip Rivers, Shawn Merriman, Nate Kaeding and a draft pick that turned into Roman Oben. It looked like a horrible trade. Manning has a ring now and the Giants look pretty good at this point. But does that mean Rivers won't lead the Chargers to a Super Bowl one day? As for Ted Thompson, this move will either A) Work well in the Packers favor or B) Blow up in his face or C) Become a wash. The only thing I can say for certain is this, I don't have to respect Thompson's move, but I can respect the fact that he had a specific vision on how to run the Packers and deal with personnel and he stayed true to that vision whether it ends up ultimately being right or wrong, even despite public criticism and realizing it might cost him his job in the short term. He may prove to be an idiot with a giant set of brass balls, but those of you who wish to label him an idiot, don't be so brazen as to not acknowledge that he did show some brass balls. There's a difference between the two. If you are a Packers fan, this will all only play out under the long game anyway. Don't work yourself into a lather and act like that kind of guy you don't want to share a foxhole with. Things like this shake themselves out in their time, not yours. GG
Very very well said. :towelwave:
 
Phase of the Game said:
Relax, boys. Sho has proven that he is a blind supporter of TT and even Joe B. has acknowledged that. The team is 2-3 and not playing well and I am not a TT supporter. Isn't calling someone a d-bag reportable?
Ummm...why do you have to keep hiding behind something Joe B. said.And I don't recall Joe B. ever calling me a blind TT supporter.And nothing I have said in this thread or the game thread is anything close to blind support of TT.I have criticized him quite a bit.I criticized him during the offseason for not getting a veteran backup. I criticized him for not resigning Williams during the year last year. I criticized him as well as Favre for that situation.Perhaps you should just stick to facts rather than some of what you have been saying.
 
CaptainObvious said:
teamroc said:
reap reap reap reap reapsow sow sow sow sow
Odd bump.Rodgers goes for 313 and 3 TDs with 1 pick.
He doesn't understand the aphorism in the first place.
Seriously.I mean, it was a vintage later-year Favre performance. Just enough to give us hope, and then a game killing, soul crushing interception to give the game away. Favre/Rodgers is the least of this teams problems...
You must just be a blind TT homer.Seriously...do some just want to blame the game on the INT and not look at what else Rodgers did?Do people still want to call him injury prone? Or can he be called tough now for playing through it (like he has other various injuries at times)?Do some people not see how poorly the D has played? How bad the penalties have been (one costing them a FG today which...oh by the way was the difference in the score).
 
Could the defensive play have anything to do with the offensive play? I haven't seen all the games, I just think that if the GB offense isn't working on all cylinders the D might be fighting an uphill battle. Grant's performance in the latter half of the year last year certainly would have helped with T.O.P., I know the Packers were somewhat deep in the first half before Rodgers' stat line improved. Multiple 3 and outs almost helped Jacksonville overtake the Steelers tonight in the second half.

 
Could the defensive play have anything to do with the offensive play? I haven't seen all the games, I just think that if the GB offense isn't working on all cylinders the D might be fighting an uphill battle. Grant's performance in the latter half of the year last year certainly would have helped with T.O.P., I know the Packers were somewhat deep in the first half before Rodgers' stat line improved. Multiple 3 and outs almost helped Jacksonville overtake the Steelers tonight in the second half.
Could some of it?Sure.Though, Atlanta took the opening kickoff and went right down pretty easily.Hard to put that on the defense.The D has not been able to stop most teams running games, is rarely putting pressure on QBs, and is not getting of the field on third downs.The Minny game, it was the 3rd quarter. Minny held the ball a ton. Part because the offense had one 3 and out.But they let Minny run the ball, control the clock, then had a punt return putting the defense back on the field. But they could not get off the field either.Maybe it has a little to do with it. But this D is playing far different than last year.Barnett might be having his worst year yet. Big problems missing tackles...just not being agressive at all on D IMO.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top