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!
Me, too (over McNair). But this is his last chance.I'll be starting Favre this week.
i bet you were just all over Walter Payton during his career, huh?
I think people are severly underlooking Green in this game. If GB wants to win, which they do. Then A. Green will be the key to a victory and be the one with a good game.
It's one of those things where the stats don't tell the whole story. For most of the game, Favre played well. He didn't force passes; he took what was there and if anything, he was held back by McCarthy's conservative play-calling and, of course, the fact the Bears' defense is pretty damn good and he lacks weapons other than Driver in the passing game. Then in the fourth quarter with the game out of reach he took a couple of chances which resulted in INTs. For all the criticisms (most of them justified) that Favre took last year for taking too many chances he was 180 degrees opposite of that against the Bears. So yes, I would say that for most of the game he did play well.Actually, the thing that would scare me most if i where a Favre supporter is the fact that this was his stat line:15/29 170 yds 0 TDs 2 INTsIn a game where he for the most part played well.
They beat the snot out of a much more mobile Charlie Frye.Oh wait, CLE has a terrible offensive line,as opposed to GB, who has a . . . um . . . . uh . . . . er 
Good luck Brett!These are not compelling arguments to pick him up/keep him on your team.Will McCarthy open the playbook and let him chuck it around?It's one of those things where the stats don't tell the whole story. For most of the game, Favre played well. He didn't force passes; he took what was there and if anything, he was held back by McCarthy's conservative play-calling and, of course, the fact the Bears' defense is pretty damn good and he lacks weapons other than Driver in the passing game. Then in the fourth quarter with the game out of reach he took a couple of chances which resulted in INTs. For all the criticisms (most of them justified) that Favre took last year for taking too many chances he was 180 degrees opposite of that against the Bears. So yes, I would say that for most of the game he did play well.Actually, the thing that would scare me most if i where a Favre supporter is the fact that this was his stat line:
15/29 170 yds 0 TDs 2 INTs
In a game where he for the most part played well.
Another plus for Favre is that he will be playing at home. I think this is going to be a high scoring game. I have both Bush and Driver, so I'm expecting some big numbers next week.
I have no idea. I wasn't a huge fan of the McCarthy hire and I was disappointed with his play-calling on Sunday. Not that it would've made much of a difference against the Bears but I thought he remained conservative far too long with the game sliding away. With regard to Favre, I still like him as a fringe QB1/QB2. I do think he's going to end up having to air it out more and I think they have some favorable games from a fantasy perspective this season. And if what we saw from Green against the Bears is a sign of things to come that's going to help him too. Depending on what my options were at QB, I'd view Favre as a Buy Low candidate right now. And I'm not being a homer with that viewpoint. If I thought Favre or anyone else on the Packers was going to stink I'd say so.These are not compelling arguments to pick him up/keep him on your team.Will McCarthy open the playbook and let him chuck it around?It's one of those things where the stats don't tell the whole story. For most of the game, Favre played well. He didn't force passes; he took what was there and if anything, he was held back by McCarthy's conservative play-calling and, of course, the fact the Bears' defense is pretty damn good and he lacks weapons other than Driver in the passing game. Then in the fourth quarter with the game out of reach he took a couple of chances which resulted in INTs. For all the criticisms (most of them justified) that Favre took last year for taking too many chances he was 180 degrees opposite of that against the Bears. So yes, I would say that for most of the game he did play well.Actually, the thing that would scare me most if i where a Favre supporter is the fact that this was his stat line:
15/29 170 yds 0 TDs 2 INTs
In a game where he for the most part played well.
Walter Payton ended his career still capable of playing up to his and the fans expectations. 1986, his second to last year, ranked 5th in the NFL in rushing and did not see a major increase in turnovers over his last few years.Walter also had no problem taking a backseat to a young up and comer in Neal AndersonWalter also went out on a playoff teamWhat's Brett Favre done over his last two seasons?
He threw for over 4,000 yards and 30 TDs two years ago -- ranking fifth in the league and fourth in those categories respectively. There seems to be a belief that Favre has stunk for quite awhile when the fact is he was still an elite QB just two seasons ago. Last season he was bad. He was very bad. But in 2004, he was still pretty damn good.
one could say the same thing about Culpepper...
They could ... but only if they weren't interested in comparing pedigrees.one could say the same thing about Culpepper...
Trying to think what else was different that year, hmm, hmmm :coughcough2probowlguardscoughcough:
Not to mention Javon Walker and a better team overall. But that isn't the point. The question was asked what has Favre done in the past two seasons and just two years ago it's a fact that he was pretty damn good.
My point was that he was pretty damn good because he had a better team around him.His crappy team isn't going anywhere soon, so I doubt he'll suddenly revert to his 2004 form.
I'm not saying he will. That's never been a point I've tried to make. All I've said about Favre is I don't believe he'll be as bad as he was last season and I think he'll be a fringe QB1/QB2 option this season. I still believe that.
I think he'll still be terrible against top rate D's, and might do okay against crappy ones.Will definitely be interesting to see how he does against some MOR D's (like NO?).(I actually would remove all of my 49er paraphenalia and don a green and yellow #4 if he had a monster year, since he's my #2 QB in my money league)
Good postings, guys.The Saints have the best pash rush no one is talking about, and the continuing shuffling of the LB corps is finally starting to pay off -- the LBs in there now are pass coverage demons. The corners are still something of a soft spot until Mike McKenzie steps it back up to his 2003-04 level, but the pass rush is helping the secondary a lot.The Saints will not finish in the bottom 5 NFL defenses this season -- I look for a mid-range final team defensive ranking this year ... maybe 14th-18th.
I sense someone read the same QBBC article that I did...I'm gonna start him over Phillip Rivers and Aaron Brooks
I am starting McNair over Favre.... No question.In fact, I just cut Favre in a ten team league for the services of Troy Williamson.QBBC for me all year... here are the guys on free agencyRiversFavreT. GreenBrooksCarrPenningtonKitnaBrunellSimmsThis is why I think all ten team leagues should play with 2 QB's. Right now I am using free agency as my personal bench. I just pick whichever QB has the best matchup each week. This week I have Rivers as the best matchup, but because he hardly threw the ball I can't start him. McNair and Favre have the second best matchups, but Favre just can't be trusted in a league that gives -2 for INT's.Me, too (over McNair). But this is his last chance.I'll be starting Favre this week.
Keep in mind that the whole point of the Bears defense is to allow for the short passing game, and prevent you from completing anything deep. In the Tampa 2, or 2 deep, whatever they call it, the safties are always allowing teams to catch balls in front of them, then they come up and tackle them. In the case of the last game, when the Bears took the lead, it played right into the strength of the defense. It's very, very hard to complete long passes or come back from deficits against that type of defense. That's just the way it is. It helps when you play it with good talent too, as the Bears showed.I have no idea. I wasn't a huge fan of the McCarthy hire and I was disappointed with his play-calling on Sunday. Not that it would've made much of a difference against the Bears but I thought he remained conservative far too long with the game sliding away.These are not compelling arguments to pick him up/keep him on your team.Will McCarthy open the playbook and let him chuck it around?It's one of those things where the stats don't tell the whole story. For most of the game, Favre played well. He didn't force passes; he took what was there and if anything, he was held back by McCarthy's conservative play-calling and, of course, the fact the Bears' defense is pretty damn good and he lacks weapons other than Driver in the passing game. Then in the fourth quarter with the game out of reach he took a couple of chances which resulted in INTs. For all the criticisms (most of them justified) that Favre took last year for taking too many chances he was 180 degrees opposite of that against the Bears. So yes, I would say that for most of the game he did play well.Actually, the thing that would scare me most if i where a Favre supporter is the fact that this was his stat line:
15/29 170 yds 0 TDs 2 INTs
In a game where he for the most part played well.
All that is correct but when you attempt just 5 passes in the first half when you're behind you're just playing into the Bears' hands. I'm not saying McCarthy needed to have Favre chuck it all over the field but his ultra-conservative game plan sure wasn't going to give the Packers any chance at all to win the game. Again, I don't think they were going to win anyway. The Bears are a vastly superior team without question. But it would've been nice to see McCarthy give his team a fighting chance. I don't believe he did.Keep in mind that the whole point of the Bears defense is to allow for the short passing game, and prevent you from completing anything deep. In the Tampa 2, or 2 deep, whatever they call it, the safties are always allowing teams to catch balls in front of them, then they come up and tackle them. In the case of the last game, when the Bears took the lead, it played right into the strength of the defense. It's very, very hard to complete long passes or come back from deficits against that type of defense. That's just the way it is. It helps when you play it with good talent too, as the Bears showed.I have no idea. I wasn't a huge fan of the McCarthy hire and I was disappointed with his play-calling on Sunday. Not that it would've made much of a difference against the Bears but I thought he remained conservative far too long with the game sliding away.These are not compelling arguments to pick him up/keep him on your team.Will McCarthy open the playbook and let him chuck it around?It's one of those things where the stats don't tell the whole story. For most of the game, Favre played well. He didn't force passes; he took what was there and if anything, he was held back by McCarthy's conservative play-calling and, of course, the fact the Bears' defense is pretty damn good and he lacks weapons other than Driver in the passing game. Then in the fourth quarter with the game out of reach he took a couple of chances which resulted in INTs. For all the criticisms (most of them justified) that Favre took last year for taking too many chances he was 180 degrees opposite of that against the Bears. So yes, I would say that for most of the game he did play well.Actually, the thing that would scare me most if i where a Favre supporter is the fact that this was his stat line:
15/29 170 yds 0 TDs 2 INTs
In a game where he for the most part played well.
