Does it seem fitting?

[Zeck180]

Why does it seem fitting that Brett Favres last season ends in misery while he watches Aaron Rodgers and the same team he threw under the bus a season ago go to the Super Bowl and win.
I find it ironic, #4 retires while the Packers win #4.ardon:

 

[PackwillBEback]

Jesus christ, really?? Really? Why are you bringing up Favre. Is it an obsession. Enjoy the damn Super Bowl, not silly things.

 

[JBlood]

Zeck, It's #13. Starting NFL history in 1967 is entirely without merit.

So, #4 is meaningless in more ways than 1.
​

 

[OshkoshWisconsinite]

^ ^ I agree

 

[Mushroom]

You kinda say other stuff over at OBF, dont you?

Id provide examples, but I was banned:Bananas: today...Silly f#$%ers

 

[ram29jackson]

Favre was a successful Packer. Rodgers is a current successful Packer.

players age, time moves on. knocking Favre is ridiculous. He is part of a winning History for a franchise.


and Quite frankly Favre was on a better team for their time, for that moment.

the 2010 Packers were great and did what they needed to do. But almost losing the ball on special teams and rushing for 50 yeards isnt really great stats for the ages.

Yet and still, XLV is a lock !

 

[armand34]

Favre was a successful Packer. Rodgers is a current successful Packer.

players age, time moves on. knocking Favre is ridiculous. He is part of a winning History for a franchise.


and Quite frankly Favre was on a better team for their time, for that moment.

the 2010 Packers were great and did what they needed to do. But almost losing the ball on special teams and rushing for 50 yeards isnt really great stats for the ages.

Yet and still, XLV is a lock !

Why do you need great statistics in the ground game? MM wasn't going to bang his head against the wall of the steelers run defense, not everyone has an adrian peterson that breaks 6 tackles to get to the endzone, 50 yards on 11 carries w/a couple of firstdown runs is SUBSTANTIAL if you actually LOOK at the game, almost a 5.0 avg which is a perfect example of effectiveness...the packers attacked where the steelers were weakest, the secondary...why attack the strength of the defense? makes no sense...you really like stats, huh? more then w's?