Favre - 1, Rodgers - 0

[Slyfox696]

You do understand that the O-Line and the D-Line consist of entirely different players, right? I want to make sure you understand football first and foremost.

Good thinking. When you get hit with bricks of logic, the best thing to do is be condescending. Mist and windows IC.

Peterson didn't go on a tear because the Defensive Coordinator for Green Bay drafted a plan that stacked the box and stifled Peterson.

No, he didn't go on a tear because the Vikings line couldn't open holes for him. It's the same logic you're using with the Packers line IC.

What the D-corrdinator basically said was "Brett will have to beat us on his own." Well, Brett did because his receivers got separation. It helps that Brett was already familiar with the secondary schemes from guys like Al Harris whom I assumed would pick off a pass of two. Brett played well and played safe. THAT is why Peterson didn't get yards.

That and the Vikings line didn't open holes.

The O-Line, on the other hand, didn't give Rogers the protection he needed.

This isn't true. It's just that the Vikings D-Coordinator drafted up a great defensive scheme to shut down the Packer receivers and give his front four a chance to get to Rodgers.

I find it amusing how you refuse the exact same argument you're giving.

Not from me. I loved Favre. I got sick of the wavering back and forth and not giving the Packers a clear message to let them draft appropriately. Rodgers was drafted in 2005, when Favre first started hinting at imminent retirement. Green bay said "okay, Brett is looking at hanging them up, let's draft this kid Rodgers as our QB of the future." They did, and Brett started the back and forth crap. That is my ONLY complaint with him. Then, Aaron was ready to start, and Green Bay had two choices - start Rodgers, or lose him to another team, allowing all of that money and prep time to go to waste for a QB entering his 40's.

So...now it's Favre's fault the Green Bay Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers?

Wow...you see I always thought it was the General Manager who drafted players. I understand what you're saying, but was not the point of drafting Rodgers to give them someone IF Favre retires? But, if Favre doesn't retire, then what's the point of having Rodgers?

To me that's silly to get rid of a great quarterback for a mediocre one, just because you spent the 24th (or so) pick on him years ago.

Stop putting words into my mouth, you ass.

Then try to be the least bit objective.

I clearly said that Ryan Grant was a huge reason for Green Bay's 13-3 season and playoff run. Suddenly, Favre had play action again for the first time in a while. Adrian Peterson has certainly helped Favre look strong this year, hasn't he? A pro bowl Running Back gives a QB a whole mess of new options.

Then how come the Packers are 2-2 this year, and just lost to the Vikings on a night where Peterson had less than 60 yards on 25 carries?

Would that same logic not apply to Rodgers?

Grant hasn't played as well as he did 2 years ago.

You're right, he's played better:

2009 (thus far):

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?playerId=9475

2007 (first 4 games):

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?playerId=9475&sYear=2007

As you can see, Grant had 6 attempts and 27 yards in his first four games in 2007. He has 67 for 257 in his first four this year. But the Packers won their first 4 games in 2007...they're 2-2 this year.

If I felt they had made the wrong choice, I'd say so. I don't think they made the wrong choice. I think they made the right choice for the long term viability of the team. Sure, I would have loved Brett to stay until he retired and play a few more seasons, but not if it meant risking the next franchise QB.

What's the point in having a mediocre long term when you can have a successful short term? I've never understood that.

Once again, I don't know which Packer fans you're speaking to. I didn't blame Favre for bad years. And if Brett did have a bad year, I chalked it up to "well, think of all the great years he's given us, and I can take a bad one."

Would you deny that those comments did and have been around?

But yes, two years ago was the perfect storm of a revitalized running game, a solid defense, AND a great year from a legendary QB. Since then, TWO of those THREE components have been missing - the running game and the defense. And now, the O-Line. That is why my team is in trouble, NOT because of the QB position.

Actually, the only component I'm SURE has been missing is a winning record and a playoff team.

It really sucks that the only way you can debate anything but wrestling is by putting words in people's mouths. You're actually tainting your WZ legacy right now because you sound so uneducated on the subject.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, I'm just assessing what you said. But hey, why bother with facts when you have mist and windows?

If the O-Line played for Favre the way they are playing for Aaron, it wouldn't have mattered, because Favre would have gotten sacked. The difference? Aaron Rodgers takes the sack, whereas Favre tries to force passes and gets picked off.

Really? I thought it was the 13-3 and the NFC Championship game that was the difference.

You're the only one making himself sound like a fool by generalizing, putting words in my mouth, and taking such a hard stance on something you are obviously unqualified to discuss intelligently.

I was a Packer fan from 1994 until the time they treated Favre so poorly. Telling me I'm unqualified to discuss this intelligently is ridiculous.

You can make all the excuses you want, and you can say whatever it is you want but you can't change the facts. Brett Favre's Packers was 13-3 and a Super Bowl contender. Aaron Rodger's Packers are 8-12, and look to be missing the playoffs two years in a row. And they did it with roughly the same level of talent.

Put Adrian Peterson on the Packers right now, and the Packers are 4-0.

Put Brett Favre on the Packers and they were 13-3.

 

[Slyfox696]

Also, IC, I just want to point out how sad it is that you know you are on the losing side of this argument, and try to use stuff like "tarnishing my legacy" to score points, as if there's such a thing as a legacy on a discussion forum.

Why not just man up and admit that the Packers were wrong and that Rodgers hasn't done what Brett could have?

 

[Slyfox696]

You're such a fool.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/59514387.html



Do some research before you start barking up my tree, Sly, you look ridiculous.

That's great IC25. Now why don't you actually READ what I said, and research that?

You know, the STARTERS on the team? Good grief, you're posting like a noob now. Try reading comprehension.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

That's great IC25. Now why don't you actually READ what I said, and research that?

You know, the STARTERS on the team? Good grief, you're posting like a noob now. Try reading comprehension.

You can't refute my proof, Sly. The Green Bay Packers are the YOUNGEST TEAM IN THE NFL and they have been now for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS. With or without reserves, it doesn't matter because ALL teams have reserves.

The issue here is that you're trying to box me in with those Packer fans who did blame Brett for down years in Green Bay, of which I am not one. I am of the opinion that Aaron Rodgers is not to blame for Green Bay's 6-10 record last year or their 2-2 start this year. He is a solid, franchise QB, and sticking with him was the best decision in the long term. That's my stance, always has been. Favre is now a division rival, thus he is an enemy. When he retires, I will take my Favre Jersey out of retirement and frame it.

 

[Slyfox696]

You can't refute my proof, Sly. The Green Bay Packers are the YOUNGEST TEAM IN THE NFL and they have been now for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS. With or without reserves, it doesn't matter because ALL teams have reserves.

That's not proof though, when I mentioned their starters. And my point is that their starters have years of experience.

But, you said they have been the youngest team for four consecutive years. Assuming that's true, wouldn't that mean they were the youngest team in the NFL when Favre went 13-3?

The issue here is that you're trying to box me in with those Packer fans who did blame Brett for down years in Green Bay, of which I am not one.

Not at all.

The issue here is that in the last three years, you can't point to ONE instance where having Aaron Rodgers has been an advantage over having Brett Favre. Not ONE instance. And that's what I've been saying all along.


And the worst part about it is that Packer fans should be absolutely furious. They are being deprived of Super Bowl opportunities, simply because the Packers (at least those who make the decisions) were more worried about their ego than they were about winning.

If Aaron Rodgers had beat Brett Favre out for the job, then so be it. I would even be a Packers fan still today. But the fact of the matter is that the Packers flat out told Favre that he wouldn't have a chance of being their starter. And THAT was wrong. You get to practice, and if Rodgers is better, then he gets the start. But telling the guy who was with your team for 16 years, through good times and bad, and who did everything he could for your team that he didn't even have a chance to start, despite probably being the better quarterback is just wrong.

And ever since then, Favre and Rodgers have proven time and again that not one time would having Rodgers be an advantage over Favre.

 

[Shocky]

vikings get theirs in week 14

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Some more people with significant credibility who feel the way I do:

Their pass protection was historically bad, continuing a baffling trend that began on opening weekend. Their receivers continued dropping critical passes. Monday night, it was tight end Donald Lee whiffing on a fourth-down pass in the end zone. And in the words of cornerback Charles Woodson, their defense “let” Favre make a few big plays against botched coverages.

Rodgers shared responsibility for a couple of the eight sacks he absorbed. There are times when he hesitated in the pocket, his timing perhaps thrown off by the footsteps he’s heard. But Rodgers was working with a nearly non-existent running game Monday night; the Packers only attempted 17 rushes. He was playing catch-up with a Vikings offense that scored at least one touchdown -- Bernard Berrian’s 31-yard reception in the third quarter -- when a Packers player missed a coverage assignment.

Most egregious, however, has been a pass-protection scheme that has allowed 20 sacks in four games this season. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, that’s the highest four-game total for a Packers team since the advent of sack records in 1963.

You're too quick to blame Rodgers, Sly. I maintain that if Aaron got the type of protection, defense, and running game that Favre got two years ago, this wouldn't even be a conversation. And I also maintain that turning the franchise over to the young stud as opposed to the old legend who couldn't make up his mind and handicapped the team's draft day and off-season strategy was the right one to make.

It'll take more than one Vikings win, at Minnesota, by 7 points, in a game where the Green Bay O-Line allowed 8 sacks, to prove me wrong.

 

[Slyfox696]

Some more people with significant credibility who feel the way I do:



You're too quick to blame Rodgers, Sly. I maintain that if Aaron got the type of protection, defense, and running game that Favre got two years ago, this wouldn't even be a conversation. And I also maintain that turning the franchise over to the young stud as opposed to the old legend who couldn't make up his mind and handicapped the team's draft day and off-season strategy was the right one to make.

It'll take more than one Vikings win, at Minnesota, by 7 points, in a game where the Green Bay O-Line allowed 8 sacks, to prove me wrong.

But that's the same excuse making that everyone else is doing. Rodgers was working with a nearly non-existent running game? The Packers ran for 19 more yards, and twice the yards per carry the Vikings did. That is just an excuse. And when Rodgers admits he made mistakes, they get brushed aside. At what point do people quit being biased, and just admit Rodgers is not Brett Favre? They're finally starting to do that in Dallas...it's time to do it in Green Bay.

But, since we're throwing out "qualified opinions" on the subject, let's ask Jay Cutler what he thinks:

Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler said Tuesday that Brett Favre is the best QB in the NFC North.


"Then 2-3 are me and Aaron, tied right now. [The Detroit Lions' Matthew Stafford] is a good player, a real good player.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=4536067

 

[IrishCanadian25]

That's not proof though, when I mentioned their starters. And my point is that their starters have years of experience.

How is that not proof? I said that the Packers were one of the youngest teams in the NFL. Despite having no evidence, you asked me which team I was watching and claimed I was wrong. I shortly thereafter showed you that, not only was I right in what I said, but the Packers have THE youngest team in the NFL! You tried to refute what I said, talked out your ass, and got called on it. Deal with it.

But, you said they have been the youngest team for four consecutive years. Assuming that's true, wouldn't that mean they were the youngest team in the NFL when Favre went 13-3?

Absolutely. And then they let Brett Favre go and put Aaron Rodgers up as the #1 guy, which further lowered their average age. What's the point?

The issue here is that in the last three years, you can't point to ONE instance where having Aaron Rodgers has been an advantage over having Brett Favre. Not ONE instance. And that's what I've been saying all along.

I am not trying to debate the last three years, Sly, I am thinking long term as well. And I think Aaron Rodgers is the right choice long term. Would Green Bay have gone 6-10 last year with Favre? Probably, had Ryan Grant stepped back and the defense underacheived. Maybe 7-9, or even 8-8.

And this year, if Brett Favre's O-Line allowed the most sacks of any 4-game set in team history dating back to the 60's, I'd wager he'd be worse than 2-2, because rather than take a sack, Favre likes to force throws that often result in interceptions.

And the worst part about it is that Packer fans should be absolutely furious. They are being deprived of Super Bowl opportunities, simply because the Packers (at least those who make the decisions) were more worried about their ego than they were about winning.

Green Bay fans are furious that Brett Favre went to a division rival. Other than that, we are quite happy having a strong, young, franchise QB and the youngest team in the NFL to look forward to. If our rebuilding period is two or even three years, we're better off than most teams.

If Aaron Rodgers had beat Brett Favre out for the job, then so be it. I would even be a Packers fan still today. But the fact of the matter is that the Packers flat out told Favre that he wouldn't have a chance of being their starter. And THAT was wrong. You get to practice, and if Rodgers is better, then he gets the start. But telling the guy who was with your team for 16 years, through good times and bad, and who did everything he could for your team that he didn't even have a chance to start, despite probably being the better quarterback is just wrong.

We may actually have found some common ground here. Though I think Aaron would have come out the winner anyway, because he's better at protecting the football. I just wish the O-Line would protect him.

And ever since then, Favre and Rodgers have proven time and again that not one time would having Rodgers be an advantage over Favre.

Green Bay took a step back as a team aside from the QB position. There is no issue at QB. There are issues at O-Line, Defense, and inconsistencies at RB.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I read Cutler's quote to, but I disagree. I think Minnesota has the best team, and they require less from their QB than Green Bay or Chicago. Most analysts feel that way, anyway.

 

[Slyfox696]

How is that not proof? I said that the Packers were one of the youngest teams in the NFL. Despite having no evidence, you asked me which team I was watching and claimed I was wrong. I shortly thereafter showed you that, not only was I right in what I said, but the Packers have THE youngest team in the NFL! You tried to refute what I said, talked out your ass, and got called on it. Deal with it.

You DO realize the difference between "starters" and "team" right? I was talking about their starters, and you quote me something that is talking about the whole team. That's like me saying the ECW main-event is weak, and you telling me how great HHH and John Cena are.

Absolutely. And then they let Brett Favre go and put Aaron Rodgers up as the #1 guy, which further lowered their average age. What's the point?

That Favre won with a youngest team, and Rodgers isn't.

Again proving Favre > Rodgers

I am not trying to debate the last three years, Sly, I am thinking long term as well. And I think Aaron Rodgers is the right choice long term. Would Green Bay have gone 6-10 last year with Favre? Probably, had Ryan Grant stepped back and the defense underacheived. Maybe 7-9, or even 8-8.

But I'M thinking of Super Bowls, which is what I would assume every franchise desires. And the Packers were Super Bowl ready. With Rodgers, they haven't shown any ability to get there.

And this year, if Brett Favre's O-Line allowed the most sacks of any 4-game set in team history dating back to the 60's, I'd wager he'd be worse than 2-2, because rather than take a sack, Favre likes to force throws that often result in interceptions.

Favre has been to two Super Bowls, winning one, and only had a losing record once (I believe).

Are we really going to start comparing Favre's impact vs. Rodgers? The fact of the matter is, that if Rodger's would get rid of the ball sooner, then they wouldn't have that many sacks.

Green Bay fans are furious that Brett Favre went to a division rival. Other than that, we are quite happy having a strong, young, franchise QB and the youngest team in the NFL to look forward to. If our rebuilding period is two or even three years, we're better off than most teams.

But, you shouldn't be rebuilding right now, you should be contending for Super Bowls. Like we did in 2007.

We may actually have found some common ground here. Though I think Aaron would have come out the winner anyway, because he's better at protecting the football. I just wish the O-Line would protect him.

Aaron would not have come out the winner, and the Packers knew that. They knew when it came down to it, Favre was going to win that spot, which is why they didn't give him a chance to compete for it. And when Favre won it, Rodgers was going to leave. Which you admit is the reason they got rid of Favre.

Green Bay took a step back as a team aside from the QB position. There is no issue at QB. There are issues at O-Line, Defense, and inconsistencies at RB.

13-3 vs. 6-10.

The only MAJOR change in personnel? The quarterback position.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

You DO realize the difference between "starters" and "team" right? I was talking about their starters, and you quote me something that is talking about the whole team. That's like me saying the ECW main-event is weak, and you telling me how great HHH and John Cena are.

I am the one who originally brought up the youth statement, you remember that. YOU tried to refute ME, not the other way around. Let's recap:

My original statement:

You're right, but they have drafted well. The Pack are a VERY young team.

Okay, so you quoted that exact statement, and then responded:

Uhh...no they are not. What team are you watching? Almost all their starters have three years of experience or more.

So for those of you keeping score at home, I said the Packers were a young team, to which Sly replied "they are not" and actually had the balls to ask me what team I was watching.

Now you're the first who tried to separate out the starters, but you did it after claiming that my statement of the youth of the entire team was false. I then provided you with crystal clear proof of my assertion.

 

[Shocky]

 

[IrishCanadian25]

It's been a long time since Sly and I had a throwdown like this. It's refreshing. Plus, since I am sick, I am in a mood...

 

[Ty Burna]

Eh I'll chime in here real quick since I watched the entire game as well.

What I saw was that the Packers Offensive line was broken down rather easily when the coverage was good for the Vikings. It was sort of a perfect combination of everything, bad OLine, great Dline, and great coverage. Rodgers started to hit his passes when he faced the blitz and got the ball out quickly, that's where he did the most damage. Essentially the Packers best method on offense was to move to a more West Coast Offense style of play, hitting the 8 and 9 yard passes on a three step drop and let the receivers gain the yardage instead of trying to air it out for 20+ deep throws every play.

It was those passing plays the Packers tried to do that killed them, and why Rodgers was sacked so much. The coach should have known his line wouldn't have held up against the Vikings Dline, and try to slow them down with quick outs and screen plays like they did at the beginning of the game. For whatever reason they got away from that, and that is what killed them in the end. Rodgers should have known he needed to do a three step drop and get the ball out. Even in Shotgun it should have been the same way of thinking. So to place blame on it, Rodgers held onto the ball too long behind a porous offensive line, the Vikings Dline clearly outclassed the Packers Oline, and McCarthy got away from what was working prior in the game until the 4th quarter down by 16.

 

[gd]

Favre may be better than Rodgers at the moment, but that won't be the case 2 years from now. Heck, that probably won't be the case around Week 14. I saw the Packers v. the Bears and was really impressed by GB, especially their D, but they have been rather underwhelming since then.

 

[Slyfox696]

I am the one who originally brought up the youth statement, you remember that. YOU tried to refute ME, not the other way around. Let's recap:

My original statement:



Okay, so you quoted that exact statement, and then responded:



So for those of you keeping score at home, I said the Packers were a young team, to which Sly replied "they are not" and actually had the balls to ask me what team I was watching.

But, how does the third guy on the depth chart impact the outcome of the game? That doesn't make sense. Are you really trying to say the Packers have taken a step backwards, because guys 41-55 are 21 years old?

The fact of the matter is the TEAM is made up of the guys who PLAY. If they don't play or contribute, then they have zero part in this discussion. Which means the STARTERS are the ones we need to look at, in terms of the quality of play.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, that's IC25 trying to say that guys who never step on the field actually have a part in how well the Packers play on game day.

 

[Slyfox696]

Favre may be better than Rodgers at the moment, but that won't be the case 2 years from now. Heck, that probably won't be the case around Week 14. I saw the Packers v. the Bears and was really impressed by GB, especially their D, but they have been rather underwhelming since then.

2 years from now probably won't matter...the Packers were ready to win LAST YEAR. In the NFL, teams go in cycles, and when it is your chance to win big, you HAVE to do it. Aside from the Steelers and possibly the Patriots, every team has had ups and downs in quality. And the Packers will have that within the next 3 years.

They've given away a possible Super Bowl win, for several years of mediocrity, during which time they could have drafted another QB. It's silly to me.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

But, how does the third guy on the depth chart impact the outcome of the game? That doesn't make sense. Are you really trying to say the Packers have taken a step backwards, because guys 41-55 are 21 years old?

The fact of the matter is the TEAM is made up of the guys who PLAY. If they don't play or contribute, then they have zero part in this discussion. Which means the STARTERS are the ones we need to look at, in terms of the quality of play.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, that's IC25 trying to say that guys who never step on the field actually have a part in how well the Packers play on game day.

More like, it's Sly realizing he put his foot in his mouth, got called on it, and not being able to admit it. It's the same shit that's made him famous.

 

[CH David]

But, how does the third guy on the depth chart impact the outcome of the game?

I realize different argument, just bringing this up. Nick Roach was third string for the Bears at Middle Linebacker. Urlacher got hurt, Hunter Hillenmeyer took his spot, he got hurt, Nick Roach took that spot. Third guy impacted the games he has been in.

 

[justinsayne]

But, how does the third guy on the depth chart impact the outcome of the game? That doesn't make sense. Are you really trying to say the Packers have taken a step backwards, because guys 41-55 are 21 years old?

The fact of the matter is the TEAM is made up of the guys who PLAY. If they don't play or contribute, then they have zero part in this discussion. Which means the STARTERS are the ones we need to look at, in terms of the quality of play.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, that's IC25 trying to say that guys who never step on the field actually have a part in how well the Packers play on game day.

Easy, the starter gets hurt it up to the second and third stringers to come in and take their spots until they're healthy again, this is where the Packers are running into problems the have no depth at the O-line, so one injury and the entire line gets shuffled around and people are playing positions they are not used to playing hence the O-line suffers like it has the past couple weeks

 

[byrnside]

One dropped pass in the end zone turned into a catch and the Packers won. Packers O-Line blows.

 

[Freedom 35]

all ill say is Packer nation deserves this

having lived in wisconsin my whole life i must say that despite popular beleif around sports Packer fans are potentially the worst in sports (Justin gets a free pass because hes the man) but irregardless i hope the losses pile up on Rodgers, even though before the season i beleived him to be better than my boy Jay Cutler