Favre - 2, Packers - 0

[Slyfox696]

Not all 21. But enough of them. Or, was Albert Haynesworth's play at DT so critical to the Titans success last year. I mean, the same team that started 10-0 is now 1-6. I mean, teams never go south from one year to the next. Is that your position?

Look at the difference in the Quarterback play.

But besides that, the Titans aren't going to finish this year as a bad team. And the Packers are in their SECOND year of not winning.

Yes they are. Both starting corners are over 30. Both offensive tackles are over 30, and the three guys in the middle are new, signaling that last year's group was a big bucket of failure. They started a rookie vs. Jared Allen today, and that didn't go well. Their number one receiver is 34. Ryan Grant was a one year wonder. Aaron Rogers did not inherit a contender. The team is even older this year, and the fact that he has a winning record with them is a miracle.

*insert comment about 2007 and 2008 players being the same*

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. True, Charles Woodson won the Heisman. A Decade ago. Donald Driver is not getting faster at 34. Greg Jennings has been slowed by constant injuries. Ryan Grant was a flash in the pan.

Right...and 21 players all got bad at the same time...I got ya.

You keep talking about this year...I'm talking about 2007 vs. the last two years. And the fact of the matter is that the team Favre had is the same team Rodgers had. And you can't deny it. You're only "defense" is to say some guys got older. That's great...those guys are still playing at a good level. They're not playing any worse now than they did for Favre.

Then you obviously have no grasp of the game, because you can watch the Tennessee Titans do the exact same fucking thing this year.

Except with worse QB play...

 

[Slyfox696]

The offense was fine last year stat wise, with game management, and field position. Rodgers can't do anything about the defense. And actually a 6 point difference average is a fairly big drop off from one season to the next. The schedule was also a big reason for the change. In 07 they only played 4 teams with winning records. I might give the Packers one or two more wins with Favre last year instead of Rodgers but that leaves them 8-8 and still out of the playoffs. I'll take 6-10 with a 25 year old qb over 8-8 with a 39 year old qb who has 1-2 years left in the tank.

It's amazing how far people will go to justify bad decisions.

When the 2007 season was finished, everyone talked about how loaded the Packers were, how they were SuperBowl contenders, etc. Here's a source on that: http://www.gambling911.com/sports/green-bay-packers-2008-odds-2009-super-bowl-odds-081708.html

And yet, when they fail miserably...suddenly they just didn't have talent.


Make no mistake about it...if Favre had been a Packer last year (and had stayed healthy), they would have been in the playoffs.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Right...the HOMETOWN newspaper. See that thing forming over there? It's called bias...and false leaks.

Nice attempt to discredit the source. Fail.

But, no, surely no team would ever put out false information to the press to help justify their incredibly crappy treatment of their HOF QB...

Do you have evidence of this, or are you just posting bullshit so you can say you went down swinging?

Same article/source.

Oops.

And not once saying the competition would be for the starting job.

The headline says it. Did you even read the article?

Furthermore...

With Green Bay relenting and allowing Favre to compete in training camp this week, it's clear Favre understands no matter how much pressure he brings to bear on the team, he won't be released to make his own deal elsewhere.

with one source close to the talks between Favre and the Packers telling SI.com that Favre would be able to compete for a job in camp

​

Of course it didn't.

​

I don't even see where it mentions it.

McCarthy said Favre couldn't seem to get past emotional wounds that were opened as tensions mounted in recent weeks -- even with the chance to win his starting job back....

No he didn't.

Face it. I give you sources, you give me accusations. I give your real newspapers, you give me blogs.

Think about it for a second...why in the hell would they let Favre compete for the starting job? That would COMPLETELY make their whole process for battling Favre in the first place illogical. The whole point of trying to keep Favre away was to appease Aaron Rodgers. If they bring back Favre and let him compete for the starting job, Favre was going to win the job. And then Rodgers leaves the team, which is what the Packers were trying to avoid by keeping Favre away in the first place.

1. The NFL ordered the Packers to take Favre back when he applied for reinstatement.

2. Rogers was already locked up for four more years, so there would have been plenty of time to appease him.

3. If you have Brett Favre, you're not going to release him, you're not going to get good value in a trade, so you either make him happy and start him, or take a huge hit, which they were forced to do.

4. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-11-01-brett-favre-packers-analysis_N.htm?csp=34

According to those close to the situation, the discussion was heated at times, with both sides airing grievances from the previous months. McCarthy presented a plan in which Favre could compete with Rodgers for the starting job — an opportunity about which insiders close to Favre said the quarterback had become excited before he departed for Green Bay.

USA Today. Do they have motivation to leak information about the hometown QB in Green Bay?

There was not a chance in hell that Brett Favre was going to get a fair shot at competing for his starting job. He just wasn't. It would have made NO sense to give him that chance, because it would have completely invalidated the entire reason the whole issue was brought up in the first place.

Right. Your assumptions, or reported facts from journalists.....

 

[Turd Ferguson]

A notorious choke artist? How do you figure? He's 12-6 in the Postseason. His passing numbers are roughly comparable to Troy Aikman, Steve Young, and Tom Brady.

How is he a choke artist? Because he took bad Packer teams to the playoffs and didn't win? I mean, you're giving a pass to Rodgers for having a team that is FAR superior than some of the teams Favre played for..and yet call Favre a choke artist for actually getting his team IN the playoffs but not win.

How fucked up is that logic?

Let's give Rodgers this year to see how he does. The Packers are 4-3 right now, which is at least Rodgers putting them in a position to make the playoffs. We'll have to revisit his success in December. I really don't see a difference in the 2007 and 2008 teams. Favre and Rodgers' stats are virtually identical. The 7 win differential obviously has to do with injuries, failures in coaching, scouting, and personnel decisions, and aging players. Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher are not the same offensive linemen they once were. Neither quarterback made the playoffs last year... and Favre started the season 8-3, finishing out at 9-7. I think it would be fair to call 2008 a wash.

Going into Favre's playoff failures:
1995 NFC Championship vs. Cowboys: Fourth quarter, Packers down 31-27. Favre already threw a key interception to Leon Lett. He has the chance to take the lead and seal the game, and he throws a pick to Larry Brown to end the game.

Super Bowl 32 vs. Broncos: One year after winning the Super Bowl vs. the Patriots, the Packers take on the Broncos. 1:45 left, on a potential game winning drive, Favre goes four and out. Broncos win.

2001 NFC Divisional Playoffs vs. Rams: The Rams were known for their offensive prowess, so if the Packers were going to be beaten, it was a given that it would be by the hands of Kurt Warner and his crew. Instead, Favre throws 6 interceptions, 3 of which were returned for touchdowns. Another was returned to the Green Bay 5 yard line. Favre gave the Rams a 41-17 win.

2002 Wild Card vs. Falcons: The Falcons embarrass the Packers in snowy Lambeau. Favre throws two picks as 22 year old Michael Vick leads the Falcons to a 27-7 win.

2003 NFC Divisional Playoffs vs. Eagles: This was the infamous 4th and 26 game. The game still went to overtime, and Favre throws a pick to Brian Dawkins which is the catalyst for a clinching David Akers field goal.

2004 Wild Card vs. Vikings: The Vikings were an 8-8 team who lucked into the playoffs. Favre throws four picks in the infamous Randy Moss mooning game as the Vikings upset the Packers 31-17.

2007 NFC Championship vs. Giants: Brett Favre throws a pick in overtime to Corey Webster. This is the catalyst for a game winning field goal for the Giants that sends them to the Super Bowl.

If I were Ted Thompson, I would have had it with Brett Favre too. Let's not forget that in 2005, the Packers finished 4-12, and in 2006, they finished 8-8.

No, not even close. To be a Top 5 QB, you have to actually win.

Mannning, Brady, Rothlisberger, Brees and Favre would probably be my top 5, although not necessarily in the order.

By a borderline top 5, I meant more like in the 6-8th best range. I think Rodgers is statistically an excellent quarterback who is going to win a Super Bowl someday, perhaps even more than one. I think Rodgers is making the best with what he has, and I think he should, if anything, be commended for doing so well despite almost reaching the amount of sacks he had last year already in week 8. Rodgers got sacked 7 times alone today. He also got hit a bunch of times as well. The quarterback is going to have a hard time winning games if he's getting flattened by freak athletes.

 

[Big Sexy]

When the 2007 season was finished, everyone talked about how loaded the Packers were, how they were SuperBowl contenders, etc. Here's a source on that: http://www.gambling911.com/sports/green-bay-packers-2008-odds-2009-super-bowl-odds-081708.html

Everyone was talking about the Packers being great, yet the only source you can find is some gambling site. What people predict doesn't mean shit anyways. I don' t know why their defense suddenly started to play like shit, but they did. The numbers prove it.

 

[justinsayne]

I've made it fairly clear I don't like the attention Favre gets, but this was funny. Ted Thompson should be chased out of Green Bay with pitchforks and torches. People keep talking about how great Rogers is going to be. I still haven't seen it.

Yeah because their was nothing impressive about him throwing for 287 yds., and 3 TDs, and rushing for 52 yds., and doing all this with practically no offensive line, yeah I forgot QBs that do that are pretty shitty

Ted Thompson is doing what's best for the Packers franchise long term, it just makes more sense to put the ball in the hands of the 26 yr. old QB who's putting up good numbers, than going with the 40 yr. old that doesn't know WTF he's going to do from season to season, Rodgers is doing a fine job, last season the defense was plague with injuries, unless you expect Rodgers to run out there and play defense too you can't blame him for the last season, he did his part and kept the Pack in most of those games last year till the end, and now this season his offensive line is being hit with the same injury bug, if Favre was still a Packer he'd being getting the shit beat out of just as much as Rodgers is this year if not more, Rodgers is a much more mobile QB than the 40 yr. old Favre, and the mobility is likely the one thing keeping them in games

 

[FromTheSouth]

Look at the difference in the Quarterback play.

Because it was the QB that let Matt Schaub throw for 400 yards and let Tom Brady throw for six touchdowns, including five in the second quarter? Right....that must be Kerry Collin's fault.

But besides that, the Titans aren't going to finish this year as a bad team.

Of course not. They went to the younger QB who has patiently been waiting his turn on the bench.

And the Packers are in their SECOND year of not winning.

Except that they have a winning record right now.

*insert comment about 2007 and 2008 players being the same*

*insert comment about skills dropping from one year to the next pretty regularly in football throughout history, repeatedly*

Right...and 21 players all got bad at the same time...I got ya.

This is the league where the team that loses the Super Bowl hasn't made the playoffs 8 out of the last ten years. The second best team in the league consistently fails to make the playoffs the next year. It happens all the time.

You keep talking about this year...I'm talking about 2007 vs. the last two years. And the fact of the matter is that the team Favre had is the same team Rodgers had. And you can't deny it. You're only "defense" is to say some guys got older. That's great...those guys are still playing at a good level. They're not playing any worse now than they did for Favre.

Yeah, once again, skills diminish faster in football. The Titans are proof, unless we're supposed to believe that Kerry Collins plays pass defense. Furthermore, Super Bowl losers haven't been making the playoffs. So, yes, 21 guys can get that bad from one year to the next.

Third, football is the ultimate team game. It is eleven guys working in concert. It doesn't take 21 guys starting to suck. It takes one or two, and when one of them is a running back failing to average 4 yards a carry and getting a case of the fumbles, it can set you back a few wins. When it's an All-Pro offensive tackle like Chad Clifton not being able to get out of his stance anymore, it can set you back a few wins.

But, let's look at the numbers. The Packers in 2008 were eighth in the league in total offense, and fifth in scoring. FIFTH IN SCORING. How was it Aaron Rogers fault that they were seven games worse? It sure had nothing to do with the fact that they were 20th in total defense and 21st in scoring defense, could it?

Yeah, not Aaron Rogers fault.

Except with worse QB play...[/quote]

 

[Freddy4190]

My poor Giants.. what the hell is going on?

 

[Moon Knight]

My poor Giants.. what the hell is going on?

They are playing as expected. Bad.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Of course they had the same players, but if they don't have the confidence to believe in Rodgers, than that's on them more than it is on Rodgers. Grant was horrible last year and the defense gave up more points and yards so maybe they're to blame more than Rodgers. Rodgers didn't ask for any of this when the whole Favre shit started. He handled that situation as best as he can and he's trying to do the best that he can with a shitty offensive line and all the other problems. He has my utmost respect and people need to stop shitting all over him. He's only played 22 or 23 games. Give him time and get the offensive line healthy and we'll see what happens.

And Favre hasn't been all time great in the playoffs since his Super Bowl Run. Throwing 6 INT's against Green Bay, losing to Atlanta at home for the first time in Lambeau Field History, and we all know about that championship game.

 

[Slyfox696]

To FTS and Big Sexy:

Just repeat everything I said all over again. Seriously, it's embarrassing how you keep saying the same things, and then try to get off-topic to prove your point. That's how you know you're losing. You're arguing semantics and trying to twist the argument.

Of course they had the same players, but if they don't have the confidence to believe in Rodgers, than that's on them more than it is on Rodgers.

Doesn't change the fact the Packers would have been better with Favre than Rodgers.

Which is my point.

Rodgers didn't ask for any of this when the whole Favre shit started. He handled that situation as best as he can

No doubt about that. I'm not knocking Rodgers the man, just the QB.

And Favre hasn't been all time great in the playoffs since his Super Bowl Run. Throwing 6 INT's against Green Bay, losing to Atlanta at home for the first time in Lambeau Field History, and we all know about that championship game.

Re-read my comments on this.

 

[justinsayne]

LMFAO, I love how people are trying say Rodgers is the is a bad QB, when after 8 weeks this season he is currently the top ranked QB (granted Brees adn Ryan haven't played yet) seriously how the fuck can anyone say Rodgers is a bad QB when he has the current highest QB ranking in the league?!?!

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&d-447263-n=1

the numbers don't lie

 

[Slyfox696]

LMFAO, I love how people are trying say Rodgers is the is a bad QB, when after 8 weeks this season he is currently the top ranked QB (granted Brees adn Ryan haven't played yet) seriously how the fuck can anyone say Rodgers is a bad QB when he has the current highest QB ranking in the league?!?!

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&d-447263-n=1

the numbers don't lie

I guess for the same reason people used to try and say Favre was a bad QB when he had teams that were MUCH worse than the one Rodgers currently has.

Rodgers is 10-13 as a starter, with three of those wins coming this year against the Rams, Lions and the Browns.

Maybe if he could actually take his team to a decent season we could change our minds.

 

[BooCocky]

I guess stats are more important than wins and losses...

 

[justinsayne]

I guess for the same reason people used to try and say Favre was a bad QB when he had teams that were MUCH worse than the one Rodgers currently has.

Rodgers is 10-13 as a starter, with three of those wins coming this year against the Rams, Lions and the Browns.

Maybe if he could actually take his team to a decent season we could change our minds.

Yes I forgot the QB is responsible for the poor running game, shit O-line, and mediocre defense, Rodgers is doing his job, and then some he can't be blamed for everything, Favre is currently playing for a team with a much much better O-line, has arguably the best RB in the league behind him and a solid young set of WR, Favre is playing for a completely different team if he was playing for the Packers right now he wouldn't be nearly as successful as he has been so far this year

Also pretty sure Favre was the guy that lead the Packers to their worse season in the past 20 years, yep he was that guy that lead the team to that shitty 4-12 season

 

[Turd Ferguson]

And responsible for all of those playoff failures I mentioned a page back as well.

Rodgers has one full season under his belt where he was the best part of a shitty team.

 

[Slyfox696]

I guess stats are more important than wins and losses...

Only when you're trying to justify boneheaded moves that take a Super Bowl contender to a team that doesn't make the playoffs.

Yes I forgot the QB is responsible for the poor running game, shit O-line, and mediocre defense, Rodgers is doing his job, and then some he can't be blamed for everything, Favre is currently playing for a team with a much much better O-line, has arguably the best RB in the league behind him and a solid young set of WR, Favre is playing for a completely different team if he was playing for the Packers right now he wouldn't be nearly as successful as he has been so far this year

Also pretty sure Favre was the guy that lead the Packers to their worse season in the past 20 years, yep he was that guy that lead the team to that shitty 4-12 season

Know what the difference is between Favre and Rodgers? Favre has actually been proven to be a winner. Rodgers took over a 13-3 team that promptly went 6-10.

See the difference?

And responsible for all of those playoff failures I mentioned a page back as well.

Rodgers has one full season under his belt where he was the best part of a shitty team.

I love how everyone blames the Packers for Rodgers not winning, and blamed Favre for the Packers not winning.

Hypocrisy is awesome, ain't it?

 

[klunderbunker]

Rogers could be great in a few years with more experience.

Why would you not want to go with the guy that gives you the best chance to win right now? At the beginning of last season we're supposed to believe that Favre wasn't as good of an option as Rogers, or that Rogers was even on Favre's level? I could get that if it was after the 4-12 season, but not after 13-3.

 

[Slyfox696]

Rogers could be great in a few years with more experience.

Could be. And when Favre retires, I hope he is, as I will probably go back to being a Packers fan at that time.

I'm only against the Packers because of their treatment of Favre.

Why would you not want to go with the guy that gives you the best chance to win right now? At the beginning of last season we're supposed to believe that Favre wasn't as good of an option as Rogers, or that Rogers was even on Favre's level? I could get that if it was after the 4-12 season, but not after 13-3.

This is my issue. The Packers traded away a loyal player to the team, after he guided them to a NFC Conference Championship, after telling him he wasn't going to be able to compete for a job he held for 15 or 16 years. That's just wrong.

If the Packers had gone 12-4 or even 11-5 last year, then I would have probably said that the trade worked out for everyone. But, they didn't. Instead of taking that step towards the Super Bowl everyone knew they were ready for, they missed the playoffs.

If the Packers (well, at least the fans) would just come out and say the Packers obviously made a mistake, then this would be over with. But they won't, because they're too blinded by Packer love or Favre hate. And that's just silly.

 

[klunderbunker]

One of the most amusing things I had seen in months was on Sportscenter leading up to the game where Green Bay citizens were talking about how upset they were that Favre abandoned them or something. Give me a break. How would you like it if your boss came in there all gung ho about some new guy they had hired after you had given them your best year in longer than anyone can remember? Yeah I'm sure you would feel wanted too. Favre isn't a traitor. He was more or less shown the door and told that there was no need to keep him around. Why draft Rogers anyway? Did anyone really think Favre was dead already? He's going to be playing long after we're all dead so it likely wasn't a great move. Favre is a traitor? Yeah, keep telling yourselves that.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I love how everyone blames the Packers for Rodgers not winning, and blamed Favre for the Packers not winning.

Hypocrisy is awesome, ain't it?

The 2008 Packers failure has to do with Grant getting hurt, the defense declining as well as getting hurt, and the declining play of the offensive line.

The Packers had Nick Barnett, Atari Bigby, and Cullen Jenkins all on injured reserve by the end of the year. Al Harris was also out for a few games. That's four key defensive playmakers right there. Charles Woodson spent some time playing out of position at strong safety as well. The secondary was a mess. Justin Harrell was expected to step up, and so far, he's been a colossal bust. Ryan Pickett didn't perform the way he was expected to either. While AJ Hawk has been a solid player, he's not worth the #5 spot that he was drafted at.

As far as the offensive line goes, Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher are up there in age, and Tauscher wound up on IR as well. Both aren't able to withstand these defenses anymore.

 

[Shocky]

ESPN just said Rodgers has the best QB rating in the league so far. The guy has talent, it's the team around him that sucks.

 

[gd]

Adrian Peterson is better than Rodgers and Favre.

 

[klunderbunker]

Good for him having a good rating. How many games has he won them?

 

[gd]

I'm not going to try and argue that Rodgers is better than Favre, but to be fair, the Vikings have better players than the Packers.