And the Packers next QB is...

[Zero2Cool]

Thompson is building a team that isn't going to rely on the QB as much as it has in years past.

Exactly.

I've been saying I have the impression Rodgers is a guy who will keep us in teh game with his average to above average play, but won't make the mistakes that cost us the game. ie, Trent Dilfer of the Ravens from years back would be the example I'd offer up.

 

[refpacker]

Vince Young if brett retires......Trade for him no matter what it takes....LOL j/k

 

[P@ck66]

Thompson is building a team that isn't going to rely on the QB as much as it has in years past. One problem that has been lingering with Green Bay is we always live and die with Brett Favre. Judging from the recent drafts and free agency it appears GB is building a team that can win with running the ball and playing good Defense. He's making it as easy as possible for Rodgers to come in and succeed which is why I don't think there should be any excuses made for Rodgers if he does fail. Drafted A.J. Hawk with the 5th pick. All his big free agent signings have been on the Defense. Chose to give Scott Wells a contract extension. Drafted 3 offensive linemen and 2 of them were on the 1st day of the Draft. Hired a coach that is installing the zone blocking scheme.

For those reasons it seems that Rodgers is going to step in and not be asked to do quite as much as Brett Favre did. Only thing missing is a young RB which I feel we'll be getting this off season. The next time a Quarterback starts a game for the Packers it’s either going to be Rodgers or Favre. I’m sure we’ll have a veteran backup to help Rodgers along and be there in case he does down but like him or not Aaron Rodgers is the successor to Brett Favre.

Porky,

There's no guarantee that this tactic will work anymore than signing FA WR offensive weapons for Brett Favre wouldn't have..in fact, it has less of a chance to work. Look at the Ravens and Pittsburgh and New England while you're at it...They've all fallen off, and it's mostly because they don't have enough OFFENSE....Very few teams make it all the way if they don't have the Offensive fire power to do so. A handful of teams with dominant defenses have gone all the way...YOu can count them on one hand..

The Bears were LUCKY to get to the SB this year (even though they won't admit it). The Saints had them pinned down and going for that 50 yard FG and that dumb play/call by Brees/Payton in the end zone handed them back the game. Also, they didn't stick with the run enough. Teams have been slashing the Bears up the middle with the run for the last few weeks, and the Saints went away from that...so yes, they were lucky..

"One problem that has been lingering with Green Bay is we always live and die with Brett Favre. "

Live and die with him, yet without providing him with the proper offensive weapons. IMO, that would have given us a greater chance of getting back to the SB in the last few years..but it didn't happen.

There are alot of variables and IF'S in this big reclaimation/rebuilding project of TT's...and it is by no means a given that he's going to hand Aaron Rodgers the keys to a SB when Favre retires.....

It's a wait and see type thing....

 

[4packgirl]

as long as thompson & co don't get tunnel vision when it comes to rodgers, i'm ok with him being the starter.

having said that, the whole idea of favre not being out there makes me want to puke!!

 

[porky88]

Porky,

There's no guarantee that this tactic will work anymore than signing FA WR offensive weapons for Brett Favre wouldn't have..in fact, it has less of a chance to work. Look at the Ravens and Pittsburgh and New England while you're at it...They've all fallen off, and it's mostly because they don't have enough OFFENSE....Very few teams make it all the way if they don't have the Offensive fire power to do so. A handful of teams with dominant defenses have gone all the way...YOu can count them on one hand..

The Bears were LUCKY to get to the SB this year (even though they won't admit it). The Saints had them pinned down and going for that 50 yard FG and that dumb play/call by Brees/Payton in the end zone handed them back the game. Also, they didn't stick with the run enough. Teams have been slashing the Bears up the middle with the run for the last few weeks, and the Saints went away from that...so yes, they were lucky..

That is not a fact. That is your personal opinion about the Bears. 39-14 is a but whooping. Bears DEFENSE is what got them there. If your going to play lucky then the Saints were very lucky that they got back on that fumble in the 1st quarter. It works both ways. I'm sorry but plenty of teams have had good Defenses and have gone all the way. The 96 Packers Defense bailed their offense out of many situations during that year especially when players started to go down. Brett Favre said that Desmond Howard is the reason why we won the Super Bowl. He said without him we probably don't win that year. Speaking pretty highly of a special teams player.

Were the Buccaneers lucky to go the Super Bowl? 85 Bears? The 70's Steelers? They went 4 times. 2000 Ravens? The 60's Packers had very good Defenses. The Cowboys in the 90's also had a very good Defense. The Patriots of the 00's won 3 Super Bowls because of Tom Brady and their Defense. Last years Steelers won the Super Bowl because they could run the ball and play good Defense. That's more than 5 teams. I might need to borrow your fingers so I can actually count them all.

Live and die with him, yet without providing him with the proper offensive weapons. IMO, that would have given us a greater chance of getting back to the SB in the last few years..but it didn't happen.

There are alot of variables and IF'S in this big reclaimation/rebuilding project of TT's...and it is by no means a given that he's going to hand Aaron Rodgers the keys to a SB when Favre retires.....

I hope your going as far back as Mike Sherman then because it really is. Though the one thing Green Bay missed during the Mike Sherman era was a DEFENSE. We had an 1800 yard back. We had a Pro Bowl caliber offensive line. We had Donald Driver and Terry Glenn one year and then Driver and Walker the next year. The Offense was always in the top 5 in yardage and points. Brett Favre was the primary reason it worked but not even he could overcome the Packers consistently average to bad Defense.

It's a wait and see type thing....

I agree which is why I never made comment that this will work. I'm with Zero. I don't think Aaron Rodgers is the right guy. I debated someone about drafting Vince Young at #5 if he were to be there last year. Rodgers has a lot to prove but Thompson is certainly building a team that won't rely as much on him as the previous teams did on Brett Favre and that's probably a good thing.

 

[P@ck66]

I agree that you need a good/great defense to win championships..

BUT..you ALSO need a good/great offense.....

(The only ones who did it pretty much with the DEFENSE ALONE that I can remember are the RAVENS and the '85 BEARS....)

The SAINTS had the momentum and then blew it by their special teams play and losing field position..bad play calling, and turnovers....the Bears are really not as good as people think they are...and I can't wait for Peyton Manning to shred their DB's all game long...and they will also run on them....

Favre has never had..(not since the early to mid-90's) a solid, full compliment of talented, all-around receiver's..Glenn wasn't used correctly and got the crap beat out of him....Walker was a rookie and took 2-3 years to develop...Ferguson's always been crap and hasn't developed into better than a 3rd or 4th WR...For the last 5-6 years...Driver's been about the only constant, sure thing.

This, in my opinion, is why the Pack hasn't returned to the SB...I really don't care about statistics..they are meaningless...We may have had a prolific running game, but they couldn't score enough points...The Giants had the same thing with Tiki and Kerry Collins and they were the worst in scoring in the league..Doesn't mean a thing....

 

[porky88]

You can have all the weapons in the world but if you don't have a great Defense your going to have trouble winning a Title. Everyone then brings up the 99 Rams but what people don't know is they lead the league in takeaways that year and finished 11th in yardage on Defense and top 10 in total points allowed. By no means did Favre have a lot to work with but in my opinion the inability to field a good defense is what cost us another shot at the Super Bowl. Now Aaron Rodgers is going to be the QB of the future in all likely hood. Reported as much by pro football weekly last week. He's not Brett Favre. We cannot hold him in that regards. He's going to need the Defense to bail him out rather than bailing out the Defense. Favre has always bailed out the Defense in past years. Now the Defense appears to be on the rise and hopefully they can get to a top 10 level so they can help bail out Rodgers as he grows. No point in arguing about it because whether you agree with it or not, that’s how Thompson appears to be building this team so they can live with life without Brett Favre.

 

[pack_in_black]

Quick question, Pack- Why did the Colts make it to the SB this year? Peyton was borderline awful the first two games of the playoffs. They made it because the defense stepped up and started making stops. The second round game @ Baltimore, they didn't score a touchdown. I'd say that the defense was the reason that they won that day. You need a good D. Simple as that.

 

[P@ck66]

You can have all the weapons in the world but if you don't have a great Defense your going to have trouble winning a Title. Everyone then brings up the 99 Rams but what people don't know is they lead the league in takeaways that year and finished 11th in yardage on Defense and top 10 in total points allowed. By no means did Favre have a lot to work with but in my opinion the inability to field a good defense is what cost us another shot at the Super Bowl. Now Aaron Rodgers is going to be the QB of the future in all likely hood. Reported as much by pro football weekly last week. He's not Brett Favre. We cannot hold him in that regards. He's going to need the Defense to bail him out rather than bailing out the Defense. Favre has always bailed out the Defense in past years. Now the Defense appears to be on the rise and hopefully they can get to a top 10 level so they can help bail out Rodgers as he grows. No point in arguing about it because whether you agree with it or not, that’s how Thompson appears to be building this team so they can live with life without Brett Favre.

I didn't say you didn't need a good defense! Read my initial post...(Plus, the Colts had a HORRIBLE defense all year..but luckily for them, stepped up in the playoffs...(PLAYOFFS...PLAYOFFS..Don't talk to me about PLAYOFFS..!!)

The Ravens had a good defense this year, probably the best in the league, yet how did they do in the Playoffs..???

My point, is that you're not going to win it without a good offense as well..and I'm not sure that TT believes that...

Also, it kind of ****** me off that TT's kind of "written off" these last 2-3 years of Favre's HOF career by not seeming to care too much about building the offense. He could have done a better job of getting a couple of more "weapons" around Favre in 2 years than he has done....yet for some reason, he has failed to do so...!!

Who knows, if he did, the Pack maybe could have done some damage in the playoffs THIS YEAR!!!

 

[porky88]

Also, it kind of ****** me off that TT's kind of "written off" these last 2-3 years of Favre's HOF career by not seeming to care too much about building the offense. He could have done a better job of getting a couple of more "weapons" around Favre in 2 years than he has done....yet for some reason, he has failed to do so...!!

Who knows, if he did, the Pack maybe could have done some damage in the playoffs THIS YEAR!!!

Thompson drafted 3 offensive lineman, a receiver, and hired an offensive minded head coach. His biggest risk was a receiver in Koren Robinson. This off season hasn’t started and yet your writing him off already. I'd say he's trying to put together an offense as well.

I honestly doubt he's written off these last 2 years of his career. The Packers organization wants Favre back for 2 more years and Peter King reported as much at mid season.

I’m sure Thompson could of spend big money on the offense last year but then we’d be stuck with Patrick Dendy or Ahmad Carroll as our #2 CB and Colin Cole and Corey Williams on the inside. He could of taken Vernon Davis instead of A.J. Hawk and that would of killed us. Brett Favre and the Packers have lived through the story of a strong offense and a poor defense before and the ending was getting spanked by the Vikings who were an 8-8 team in the playoffs. The Offense was also 9th in the NFL this year. It's not like it didnt' show up at all. This team is far from a finish product but you can't spend everything in one year. This will only be his 2nd off season with a lot of cap to spend. Let's see what he can do before we make comments that he doesn't care about Favre's last seasons. From what Peter King has said it seems he cares enough to want him back.

 

[sweetvalleyhigh]

(The only ones who did it pretty much with the DEFENSE ALONE that I can remember are the RAVENS and the '85 BEARS....)

Yeah, the '85 Bears had no offense.

One name for you: Payton.

 

[P@ck66]

Payton..?? Payton who..??

Sean Payton...??

Oh yeah..the guy who's team shoulda beaten you yesterday, but gave the game away.....

(Or do you mean Peyton Manning...the guy who's going to expose the Cub's suspect cover 2 defense, and embarass the crap out of you guys in 2 weeks down in Miami....???)

 

[net]

If you take a few minutes to look at the teams in Sunday's playoff you find this:

3 of the teams had much above average QB's.
3 of the teams had much above average defenses.
All of the teams have the ability to run the ball.

But it wasn't until the Colts could stop New England did they have a chance to win.

The Bears defense shut out New Orleans in the second half.

Brady and Brees were virutally non-factors.

Rex Grossman(never to be mistaken for any other three QB's) was good enough to win.

While Indy has, and has had, an incredible offense, they were beaten last year by a team with great defense.

Bears(defense) Colts(defense) won the titles...not their offense.

Since the time of George Halas and Curly Lambeau, it still remains the same:

Offense fills the stands and defense fills the trophy case.

Run the ball, don't turn it over, play solid defense, and mount enough offense to keep the other team off the field and score a touchdown and a field goal per half.

The argument that you need the world's greatest QB to win the Super Bowl is false. It helps, but as Eli Manning will attest, it takes more than being a good QB to win it. Payton Manning hasn't won squat with a great offense until this year.

Go to NFL.com and look at where the Packers offense and defense ended up the year. It will surprise you.

But that doesn't mean the Packers just hand the ball to Rodgers. They need a veteran to come in and may the best man win. That's how you strengthen your team.

But I agree that the Packers priority should be on improving the defense and "playmakers" on offense are secondary.

 

[CaliforniaCheez]

1) Garcia is expert in the West Coast Offense.
2) The Packers have the situation to offer.
3) The Packers have the money to offer.


Who else would compete with the Eagles for his services?
vikings

 

[pack_in_black]

1) Garcia is expert in the West Coast Offense.
2) The Packers have the situation to offer.
3) The Packers have the money to offer.


Who else would compete with the Eagles for his services?
vikings

Garcia wants to start.
If Favre leaves, why would we pay A-Rodg 1st-round $ to still sit on the bench? This idea makes no sense to me.

 

[P@ck66]

If you take a few minutes to look at the teams in Sunday's playoff you find this:

3 of the teams had much above average QB's.
3 of the teams had much above average defenses.
All of the teams have the ability to run the ball.

But it wasn't until the Colts could stop New England did they have a chance to win.

The Bears defense shut out New Orleans in the second half.

Brady and Brees were virutally non-factors.

Rex Grossman(never to be mistaken for any other three QB's) was good enough to win.

While Indy has, and has had, an incredible offense, they were beaten last year by a team with great defense.

Bears(defense) Colts(defense) won the titles...not their offense.

Since the time of George Halas and Curly Lambeau, it still remains the same:

Offense fills the stands and defense fills the trophy case.

Run the ball, don't turn it over, play solid defense, and mount enough offense to keep the other team off the field and score a touchdown and a field goal per half.

The argument that you need the world's greatest QB to win the Super Bowl is false. It helps, but as Eli Manning will attest, it takes more than being a good QB to win it. Payton Manning hasn't won squat with a great offense until this year.

Go to NFL.com and look at where the Packers offense and defense ended up the year. It will surprise you.

But that doesn't mean the Packers just hand the ball to Rodgers. They need a veteran to come in and may the best man win. That's how you strengthen your team.

But I agree that the Packers priority should be on improving the defense and "playmakers" on offense are secondary.

Alot of "holes" in this argument, net...

1. Tom Brady was a factor. If he had more time, he probably would have led the Patriots down to score and been on his way to another SB....Also..just about every time they had the ball...they scored. It was a high scoring game..so, so much for DEFENSE....

2. Brees also scored against the Bears in less then about 2 mins of offense...If they didn't make the mistakes that they made, poor coaching decisions, getting away from the run, and help from the refs, they would have won that game...

3. It was the Colt's "OFFENSE" that beat the Pats vaunted "DEFENSE"....

4. The Colt's DEFENSE has been awful this year, having given up over 100 yards rushing in every regular season game, yet they are going to the SB...

5. The Ravens, who are supposed to have one of the best DEFENSES in the NFL, is NOT (going to the SB...)

The days of running the power sweep to perfection and having a game manager for a QB (Starr), and leaving the rest up to your DEFENSE are over....

The Colts beat two of the best teams that supposedly had the best DEFENSES (Ravens & Patriots), and they did it with OFFENSE. They scored MORE POINTS than the other team.....that's OFFENSE. And N.E. beat San Diego, who is also supposed to have a pretty good DEFENSE..yet Brady's OFFENSE found a way to win....

It's a specious argument at best, net...

And you will find this to be true when the BEST OFFENSE in the league systematically takes apart the team with the SUPPOSEDLY best DEFENSE in the NFC in about two weeks from now!!!

 

[porky88]

What about the Bengals? Defend them. Look at that offense and their not in the playoffs. How about the Steelers of last year? What did their offense do that was so special? A trick play and a long run is all they did on offense during that game. The Defense won it. The Saints had the #1 offense in the NFL and the Bears Defense made them look foolish. Your making excuses to why the Bears won but you fail to realize the huge break the Saints got when they recovered the 1st fumble of the game. The Bears won because their the better team and their game plan was better. Their game plan was to run the ball, force turnovers, and pressure Brees. The Saints was to play zone coverage and disguise their blitzes. They also felt they could air it out. In the end the Bears executed their end of the bargain and the Saints didn't. Better teams do what is asked of them and Chicago did just that.

The Colts beat the Ravens 15-6. They won that game because of their Defense. The Colts beat the Chiefs because of their Defense. The Colts Defense stepped it up in the 2nd half and gave up field goals instead of touchdowns to New England. The Colts Defense deserves every bit of credit as their offense does for this 3 game playoff run they've just made. Indy’s Defense has played great 10 out of the last 12 quarters.

Nobody is saying to ignore the offense. Their saying you need a great Defense to win the Super Bowl as well. You can‘t just rely on your offense. If you do you‘ll end up falling short every year just like the 2000 to 2004 Green Bay Packers.

 

[4thand26]

The winner of this argument could be chosen after the SB. How will Indy's Offense do vs Chicago's D??? It actually could turn out how Indy's D does against Chicago's O to find a winner.

 

[porky88]

I bring this back up for one reason. The Colts beat the Bears to win the Super Bowl. How did they do it? Ironically they ran the ball and played great Defense.

 

[P@ck66]

They had quite a bit offense too...

Manning threw for over 300 yards...and it was a monsoon...

(funny you don't mention that!)

 

[porky88]

They had quite a bit offense too...

Manning threw for over 300 yards...and it was a monsoon...

(funny you don't mention that!)

Manning played pretty good but he wasn't the reason why they won. A lot of his passes were check downs to the RB's. Really he had one big play all game and that was the TD to Reggie Wayne.

With the play calling you could see Manning getting frustrated. Manning pretty much did what he had to do but it was Addai and Rhodes on the ground that made Indy's offense work and it was the Defense shutting down the Bears all day. That's why they won.

 

[Zero2Cool]

P. Manning 25/38 247 1 1

 

[P@ck66]

If it wasn't monsooning the whole game...Manning would have thrown for over 500 yards and they would have scored 50 points...

I think that had a little to do with the game plan...imo!

 

[porky88]

Mooch said it best on NFL Gameday just a bit ago. The Colts beat the Bears at their own game by running the ball and playing good D and taking the ball away. I thought Manning handled himself very well in the bad weather but got to give credit to the Bears corners. They did a fine job all day. It was their front 7 that failed them.

 

[Zero2Cool]

That was a monsoon? I seen it raining, but didn't think it was a monsoon.