The offense was good last year. They needed stops. They also had a very easy schedule in 2007 when they got their 13 wins. They only played 4 teams who ended the season with winning records.
Favre - 2, Packers - 0
- Thread starter Slyfox696
- Start date
The offense was good last year. They needed stops. They also had a very easy schedule in 2007 when they got their 13 wins. They only played 4 teams who ended the season with winning records.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Hmm, yet still this year they kind of suck. It just amuses me greatly that Thompson decided that building for the future was better than winning now. That's beyond stupid.
Even with Favre they wouldn't be winning. But now I'm done defending Green Bay. I hate both the Packers and Vikings with a passion. Go Lions, hopefully you can beat Cleveland in a few weeks and have 2 wins. Fuck being a Detroit fan.
Turd Ferguson
DA-DA Da Da Da Bah Da Da DADADA
KB, are you playing Devil's Advocate here?
I would say quarterback is the least of their problems, and there's no reason to put a QB who is statistically putting up Pro Bowl numbers on the bench. Favre is a notorious playoff choke artist, and he wasn't going to put Green Bay over the hump.
Green Bay has had some bad drafts and the defense and offensive line is mediocre. The offense itself (Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Driver, 2 talented TEs) is not the problem, and I would put Rodgers in the top 10 and I think he's even a borderline top 5 QB. Despite a mediocre offensive line, Rodgers has 14 TDs, 2 INTs and a QB rating of 110.2. He got sacked 34 total times last year, and this year, he's already up to 31. Green Bay needs to do a better job of protecting him.
I would say quarterback is the least of their problems, and there's no reason to put a QB who is statistically putting up Pro Bowl numbers on the bench. Favre is a notorious playoff choke artist, and he wasn't going to put Green Bay over the hump.
Green Bay has had some bad drafts and the defense and offensive line is mediocre. The offense itself (Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Driver, 2 talented TEs) is not the problem, and I would put Rodgers in the top 10 and I think he's even a borderline top 5 QB. Despite a mediocre offensive line, Rodgers has 14 TDs, 2 INTs and a QB rating of 110.2. He got sacked 34 total times last year, and this year, he's already up to 31. Green Bay needs to do a better job of protecting him.
Lancer
Most Surreptitious Poster
Maybe now that Favre has gotten what he wanted and gone to the Vikings, and come full circle by beating them soundly in Minnesota and in Green Bay...that everyone will shut the hell up about him. This whole circus is just obscene. They even had a "Favre Cam" trained on him 24/7 throughout the game, so you could log on to NFL.com and see him scratching his nuts and drinking Gatorade. Get off his sack already.
The only thing he had left to do is reveal himself to be Jesus Christ, but maybe then everyone still wouldn't have had enough of him.
The only thing he had left to do is reveal himself to be Jesus Christ, but maybe then everyone still wouldn't have had enough of him.
Turd Ferguson
DA-DA Da Da Da Bah Da Da DADADA
That's Tom Brady.
Actually, this ISN'T true. They weren't even going to allow him to come back and compete for the starting job. That's why I'm so anti-Packers right now.
If they had said to him, "Hey Favre, come back, but you have to earn your spot", then I would have had no problem. But them telling the guy who was there for 16 years, and all he had done for them, through the good and bad times, that he wasn't even going to get a chance to compete for his job was complete bullshit.
Yup.
Except they were, now weren't they. They were 13-3 in Favre's last year.
Yup yup.
And 6 wins.
And the Packers are 4-3, with their 4 wins being against the Bears, the Rams, the Lions (without Stafford), and the Browns.
Not exactly top flight competition. The only GOOD teams the Packers have played have been the Bengals and the Vikings...and they've lost all three games.
And Favre had basically the same team and went 13-3.
Maybe you're not understanding what I'm getting at. There's more to being a good quarterback than putting up stats. Stats don't even begin to tell the entire QB story.
Except, again, they didn't.
When the Jets put Favre on their team that was 4-12 in 2007, they jumped out to an 8-3 record until Favre got injured. Don't tell me one player doesn't make the difference. The Packers went 13-3 to 6-10 without Favre. The Jets went 4-12 to 8-3 with Favre until his injury. The Vikings went 10-6 last year, and are currently 7-1.
You're right. I'm sure all those guys just magically got terrible from one year to the next.
Whatever. Go look at Green Bay's stat leaders from 2007 and 2008. You'll find roughly the same names on both lists. Except for QB...there's a different name at QB. But Grant tops running backs, Jennings and Driver top Receivers, Crosby was leading scorer, Hawk leading tackler, Barnett played the first 9 games in 2008 when they went 4-5 and Collins came into his own, Kampman, Woodson, and Poppinga was there...it was basically the same team.
Except at Quarterback...and in the standings.
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? I mean, Favre was throwing to Bill Schroeder and an ancient Antonio Freeman in 2001. Seriously.
And it's basically the same defense and line that Favre had.
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.
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
If we're going with right now, this season, Schaub would have to be in the top five.
It's...Baylariat!
Team Finnley Baylor
The Packers should have let Favre leave on his own terms. Aaron Rodgers is not good enough for the Packers to tell a first ballot Hall of Famer to fuck off, which is what Green Bay did in effect. It's Joe Montana over again. A guy who still has 2-3 years left in him and wants to play, but his team no longer wants him. And Rodgers sure as hell isn't a Steve Young caliber QB.
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
You guys are being way too hard on Aaron Rodgers. The Vikings have a lot more weapons. The Packers offensive line is terrible, Ryan Grant had one good year and then disappeared, the defense is slow, the coach is unimaginative, and the GM thinks that signing guys to long term deals when they're 29 is a good idea.
It's...Baylariat!
Team Finnley Baylor
Nothing against Rodgers. He's a good QB, just not good enough for a team to kick Favre to the curb. The Packers don't have QB issues. They have defense issues and talent issues. Minnesota is just more talented than Green Bay. True story.
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29418044.html
Like I said, the Packers said he could compete for his starting job before the 2008 season.
They'd be luckier to have Favre.
I mean, let's face it. If the Packers hadn't had the huge debacle with Favre, do you think they would accept what these last years have brought for a QB who has been in the league for what, 5 years now?
He's played well...let's see if he continues to.
Exactly. And I would say Favre has more in his tank than Montana had in his.
I've said it many times already.
The last two years have seen basically the same team in Green Bay...except for the QB. And not one person has even tried to argue differently.
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
OK, well, I'll repeat myself.
The OL isn't as effective, Grant had one good year and has disappeared since.
Greg Jennings and Donald Driver are great #2 receivers, but neither is a #1 anymore.
The Packers scored plenty of points last year. The defense was terrible.
Two years is a long time in the NFL. Skills diminish faster in the NFL than any other sport. Look at Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Orlando Pace, Matt Hasselbeck, Eddie George, etc. One day you're on top of the world, the next, your production drop off precipitously.
The problem is that Aaron Rogers had the same team, and that team was a year older, a step slower, and not as good. He was/is not the problem.
ESPN said:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/193/as-the-packers-turn-favre-scratches-the-itch
Like I said.
And considering that was the position of the Packers for a month or two (or more), I just have my doubts that "a source" is going to mean more than months worth of talk and public posturing.
No they weren't. Favre's last year was a different year from Rodgers first year. The Packers defense was horrible last year.
And in 2006, also with pretty much the same team the Packers went 8-8. Teams change from year to year. Even if the players are pretty much the same. I don't know why the Packers defense played well in 2007 and not 06, 08, or 09 but that's how it has gone.
The Jets went 4-12 in 07 because Kellen fucking Clemens was their qb. In 2006 the Jets went 10-6 and made the playoffs with Chad Pennington as their starter. The Vikings only won 10 games last year because they had Tavaris Jackson and Gus Ferotte as their qbs. The improvement the Jets and Vikings had with Favre just proves that he's a lot better then Clemens, Ferotte, and Jackson. Favre is still a great qb but he isn't much better, if at all better then Rodgers.
A lot of the players are the same but the production is not. They went from giving up 18 ppg in 07 to 24 ppg in 08.
So what you're saying is that Favre leaving just happened to coincide with the whole rest of the team becoming bad?
Really? 21 guys went from good to bad over the course of one year? THAT'S your position?
But we're not talking about 2 years, we're talking about 1 year. And we're talking about a team that became more experienced, but not old. All of those guys you named are old...the Packers are not.
Wrong, they were a year old, a step more athletic, and just didn't win as much.
I'm sorry, but I just can't believe the theory that 21 guys went from being 13-3 to 6-10...and it had nothing to do with the guy who plays THE most important position on the field, a position we've seen time and again has the most to do with success.
I'm not buying it, not for a second.
It's...Baylariat!
Team Finnley Baylor
I would say that. Montana wanted to play, but couldn't play at the level he wanted. Favre can play and near the level he's been at for years. Plus it was easier for the Niners to let Montana go when they had Steve Young backing up for years on end. The Packers wanted to move on and didn't let it happen on Favre's terms, which would have been the best thing for Green Bay to do as a franchise.
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
I'm going to believe the source from the hometown newspaper over a guy who's blog ESPN.com reads. In the days after a story like that, the source closer to the team usually works better. Newspaper over blog.
But in case you don't believe that, here is a story from a day later than the one you cited where ESPN's Wendi Nix reports that Coach McCarthy was going to open up a competition.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/31948884.html
Another Journal-Sentinel article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/specials/preview/2008/08/03/favre/index.html
Peter King for Sports Illustrated and CNN stating that there was to be a competition.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp08/news/story?id=3522971
This is from August 7th
So, like I said, he was offered the chance to compete for his job and got butt hurt and left.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3517219
But in case you don't believe that, here is a story from a day later than the one you cited where ESPN's Wendi Nix reports that Coach McCarthy was going to open up a competition.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/31948884.html
Another Journal-Sentinel article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/specials/preview/2008/08/03/favre/index.html
Peter King for Sports Illustrated and CNN stating that there was to be a competition.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp08/news/story?id=3522971
This is from August 7th
So, like I said, he was offered the chance to compete for his job and got butt hurt and left.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3517219
They were the same players, just a year more experienced.
And they got a year of experience under their belt and got a lot better. And with another year of experience under their belt they got...a lot worse.
The whole point here is that one person CAN make all the difference in the world. Which you said it couldn't, or someone said it couldn't.
When that one person plays the QB position..it can make a difference.
Well, you're rounding stats as well. 18.18 and 23.75 are the actual numbers.
Are you really trying to say the ONLY thing a QB does is put up stats? That leadership, game management, field position, the ability to fire up a team, the ability to keep a team focused doesn't matter?
You're talking about a difference of less than one touchdown a game resulting in a difference of 7 wins. Seriously?
Right...the HOMETOWN newspaper. See that thing forming over there? It's called bias...and false leaks.
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...
Same article/source.
And not once saying the competition would be for the starting job.
I don't even see where it mentions it.
No he didn't.
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.
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.
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
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?
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.
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.
Then you obviously have no grasp of the game, because you can watch the Tennessee Titans do the exact same fucking thing this year.
Well, you should.
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.