Montana/Young v. Favre/Rodgers

[RedSoxExcel]

I'm so sick of this comparison of situations. I just heard someone on the radio go off about how Montana/Young proves that the Favre/Rodgers situation is being handled properly. Complete ignorance of the facts. Heather's post gave me the inspiration to refute this.

ONE - Montana was injured in January 1991. He missed the ENTIRE 1991-92 season and Montana barely played the season before he was traded (1992-1993). Favre did not miss a single game in 16+ years. Favre finished with 4000+ yards, 28 TD's and in OT of the NFC Championship season. Montana barely played in his last season.

THREE - Rodgers is NOT Steve Young - Case and Point below.

"In 1989, he displayed his potential to become the team's starter in the future. While Montana won the NFL MVP award and led the team to victory in Super Bowl XXIV, Young still had a good season, completing 69% of his passes for 1,001 yards and 8 touchdowns, with only 3 interceptions. In his four seasons as a backup, he had thrown 23 touchdown passes and only six interceptions. It seemed there was a good chance he would eventually become the team's starter."

Rodgers has played in half a game. Young had proven WAY more than Rodgers has. Do you really think 49ers would have told Montana to go away if the only game Young had played was ONE good game.

FOUR - "Montana recovered from his injuries at the end of the 1992 season, but had lost the starting quarterback job to Steve Young. Montana, who felt he had more football left in him, was then traded to the Kansas City Chiefs in April 1993." - The 49ers did not go out publicly and say after Montana said he wanted to start - "Hey come back and be a back up". That is insulting to a legend who gave you so much. At that point you say "ok, sorry we've moved on, let's try to work out a trade". But noooooooooooooo, TT has to try to play the media game.

FIVE - THE KEY POINT. "Young finished the season with an NFL best 101.8 passer rating. Despite missing five games, he still threw for 2,517 yards and 17 touchdowns with only 8 interceptions." THAT IS WHY THE 49ERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR MOVE. He finished the 1991 season with the league's best passer rating!

SIX - This is the most insane part. In Young's previous season before Montana was traded (1992). "Young finished the season with 3,456 passing yards and 537 rushing yards, along with an NFL best 25 touchdown passes and 107.0 passer rating, earning him the Most Valuable Player award." - MVP

MVP

MVP v. Playing in half game in Dallas.

STOP COMPARING RODGERS TO YOUNG AND FAVRE TO MONTANA. It doesn't work. Do you honestly think that the 49ers would be treating Montana like this if Young had played HALF a game. NO. MVP v. Half a game, this should put any Rodgers comparisons to Young away forever.

Not to mention the fact that people that bring up Young ignore Griese, Feeley, etc.

 

[TheEngineer]

Well of course both situations aren't going to be exactly similar. It still is hell of a lot closer comparison than the Aaron Brooks to Andrew Walter transition.

 

[Truman]

Excellent points.

Another point to consider: at the time, the 49ers also had Steve Bono as a third quarterback. When both Young and Montana were injured in 1991, Bono played very well during a 5-game stretch. So the 49ers knew that if they traded Montana to clear the way for Young, they still would have a backup that they knew could win games for them. The Packers, should they decide to go with Rodgers over Favre, and ultimately have to release or trade Favre because they cannot realistically have him as a backup, will have unproven Brian Brohm.

The Montana/Young situation also suggests how ridiculous it would be for Favre to be on the roster as the backup. Montana and Young came to really resent each other and there were ripple effects. Young, who had been in the league many years at the time (after previous starting stints in the USFL and Tampa Bay), had to be played or traded at that point in his career. And, as the original poster pointed out, Young had, through those years, demonstrated that he was truly a unique talent that performed well in games. The 49ers knew they had to move Montana because Young had proven his time had come. Given the feelings between Montana and Young, and the problems that would exist in the locker room and in fandom from demoting the greatest player in team history, the 49ers knew they had to do something with Montana. The 49ers, like today's Packers, wanted Montana to make things easy by retiring. But Montana wanted to keep playing (although he never waffled on that like our Brett has).

Also, people should not use the Montana trade as a basis for valuing Favre. At that time, the NFL had not established the free agency/salary cap system and player movement still was very restricted. And draft picks were not as valuable then as they are today, because they were not the source of cheap labor that makes them so prized in today's NFL.

 

[RedSoxExcel]

Excellent points.

Another point to consider: at the time, the 49ers also had Steve Bono as a third quarterback. When both Young and Montana were injured in 1991, Bono played very well during a 5-game stretch. So the 49ers knew that if they traded Montana to clear the way for Young, they still would have a backup that they knew could win games for them. The Packers, should they decide to go with Rodgers over Favre, and ultimately have to release or trade Favre because they cannot realistically have him as a backup, will have unproven Brian Brohm.

The Montana/Young situation also suggests how ridiculous it would be for Favre to be on the roster as the backup. Montana and Young came to really resent each other and there were ripple effects. Young, who had been in the league many years at the time (after previous starting stints in the USFL and Tampa Bay), had to be played or traded at that point in his career. And, as the original poster pointed out, Young had, through those years, demonstrated that he was truly a unique talent that performed well in games. The 49ers knew they had to move Montana because Young had proven his time had come. Given the feelings between Montana and Young, and the problems that would exist in the locker room and in fandom from demoting the greatest player in team history, the 49ers knew they had to do something with Montana. The 49ers, like today's Packers, wanted Montana to make things easy by retiring. But Montana wanted to keep playing (although he never waffled on that like our Brett has).

Also, people should not use the Montana trade as a basis for valuing Favre. At that time, the NFL had not established the free agency/salary cap system and player movement still was very restricted. And draft picks were not as valuable then as they are today, because they were not the source of cheap labor that makes them so prized in today's NFL.

I agree, excellent addition. The Steve Bono is another big factor. They knew if Young went down (Young had injury issues like Rodgers does), they could go to Bono. Who do we go to?

 

[nathaniel]

No one knows how this is going to turn out, but either way someone will say "I told you so."

 

[de_real_deal]

I'm so sick of this comparison of situations. I just heard someone on the radio go off about how Montana/Young proves that the Favre/Rodgers situation is being handled properly. Complete ignorance of the facts. Heather's post gave me the inspiration to refute this.

ONE - Montana was injured in January 1991. He missed the ENTIRE 1991-92 season and Montana barely played the season before he was traded (1992-1993). Favre did not miss a single game in 16+ years. Favre finished with 4000+ yards, 28 TD's and in OT of the NFC Championship season. Montana barely played in his last season.

THREE - Rodgers is NOT Steve Young - Case and Point below.

"In 1989, he displayed his potential to become the team's starter in the future. While Montana won the NFL MVP award and led the team to victory in Super Bowl XXIV, Young still had a good season, completing 69% of his passes for 1,001 yards and 8 touchdowns, with only 3 interceptions. In his four seasons as a backup, he had thrown 23 touchdown passes and only six interceptions. It seemed there was a good chance he would eventually become the team's starter."

Rodgers has played in half a game. Young had proven WAY more than Rodgers has. Do you really think 49ers would have told Montana to go away if the only game Young had played was ONE good game.

FOUR - "Montana recovered from his injuries at the end of the 1992 season, but had lost the starting quarterback job to Steve Young. Montana, who felt he had more football left in him, was then traded to the Kansas City Chiefs in April 1993." - The 49ers did not go out publicly and say after Montana said he wanted to start - "Hey come back and be a back up". That is insulting to a legend who gave you so much. At that point you say "ok, sorry we've moved on, let's try to work out a trade". But noooooooooooooo, TT has to try to play the media game.

FIVE - THE KEY POINT. "Young finished the season with an NFL best 101.8 passer rating. Despite missing five games, he still threw for 2,517 yards and 17 touchdowns with only 8 interceptions." THAT IS WHY THE 49ERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR MOVE. He finished the 1991 season with the league's best passer rating!

SIX - This is the most insane part. In Young's previous season before Montana was traded (1992). "Young finished the season with 3,456 passing yards and 537 rushing yards, along with an NFL best 25 touchdown passes and 107.0 passer rating, earning him the Most Valuable Player award." - MVP

MVP

MVP v. Playing in half game in Dallas.

STOP COMPARING RODGERS TO YOUNG AND FAVRE TO MONTANA. It doesn't work. Do you honestly think that the 49ers would be treating Montana like this if Young had played HALF a game. NO. MVP v. Half a game, this should put any Rodgers comparisons to Young away forever.

Not to mention the fact that people that bring up Young ignore Griese, Feeley, etc.

Save your breath and time. Your logic does not matter. TT is the cult leader and you can not sway the brain washed cult followers with logic. They will have to learn and see the hard way.

Pretty funny i agree. 1/2 game in garbage time = time for you to move on brett. Such bad management and dumb fans.

 

[nathaniel]

I'm so sick of this comparison of situations. I just heard someone on the radio go off about how Montana/Young proves that the Favre/Rodgers situation is being handled properly. Complete ignorance of the facts. Heather's post gave me the inspiration to refute this.

ONE - Montana was injured in January 1991. He missed the ENTIRE 1991-92 season and Montana barely played the season before he was traded (1992-1993). Favre did not miss a single game in 16+ years. Favre finished with 4000+ yards, 28 TD's and in OT of the NFC Championship season. Montana barely played in his last season.

THREE - Rodgers is NOT Steve Young - Case and Point below.

"In 1989, he displayed his potential to become the team's starter in the future. While Montana won the NFL MVP award and led the team to victory in Super Bowl XXIV, Young still had a good season, completing 69% of his passes for 1,001 yards and 8 touchdowns, with only 3 interceptions. In his four seasons as a backup, he had thrown 23 touchdown passes and only six interceptions. It seemed there was a good chance he would eventually become the team's starter."

Rodgers has played in half a game. Young had proven WAY more than Rodgers has. Do you really think 49ers would have told Montana to go away if the only game Young had played was ONE good game.

FOUR - "Montana recovered from his injuries at the end of the 1992 season, but had lost the starting quarterback job to Steve Young. Montana, who felt he had more football left in him, was then traded to the Kansas City Chiefs in April 1993." - The 49ers did not go out publicly and say after Montana said he wanted to start - "Hey come back and be a back up". That is insulting to a legend who gave you so much. At that point you say "ok, sorry we've moved on, let's try to work out a trade". But noooooooooooooo, TT has to try to play the media game.

FIVE - THE KEY POINT. "Young finished the season with an NFL best 101.8 passer rating. Despite missing five games, he still threw for 2,517 yards and 17 touchdowns with only 8 interceptions." THAT IS WHY THE 49ERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR MOVE. He finished the 1991 season with the league's best passer rating!

SIX - This is the most insane part. In Young's previous season before Montana was traded (1992). "Young finished the season with 3,456 passing yards and 537 rushing yards, along with an NFL best 25 touchdown passes and 107.0 passer rating, earning him the Most Valuable Player award." - MVP

MVP

MVP v. Playing in half game in Dallas.

STOP COMPARING RODGERS TO YOUNG AND FAVRE TO MONTANA. It doesn't work. Do you honestly think that the 49ers would be treating Montana like this if Young had played HALF a game. NO. MVP v. Half a game, this should put any Rodgers comparisons to Young away forever.

Not to mention the fact that people that bring up Young ignore Griese, Feeley, etc.

Save your breath and time. Your logic does not matter. TT is the cult leader and you can not sway the brain washed cult followers with logic. They will have to learn and see the hard way.

Pretty funny i agree. 1/2 game in garbage time = time for you to move on brett. Such bad management and dumb fans.

Dumb fans? Any argument you have has been made moot by reverting to calling people "dumb fans".

 

[porky88]

I'm so sick of this comparison of situations. I just heard someone on the radio go off about how Montana/Young proves that the Favre/Rodgers situation is being handled properly. Complete ignorance of the facts. Heather's post gave me the inspiration to refute this.

ONE - Montana was injured in January 1991. He missed the ENTIRE 1991-92 season and Montana barely played the season before he was traded (1992-1993). Favre did not miss a single game in 16+ years. Favre finished with 4000+ yards, 28 TD's and in OT of the NFC Championship season. Montana barely played in his last season.

THREE - Rodgers is NOT Steve Young - Case and Point below.

"In 1989, he displayed his potential to become the team's starter in the future. While Montana won the NFL MVP award and led the team to victory in Super Bowl XXIV, Young still had a good season, completing 69% of his passes for 1,001 yards and 8 touchdowns, with only 3 interceptions. In his four seasons as a backup, he had thrown 23 touchdown passes and only six interceptions. It seemed there was a good chance he would eventually become the team's starter."

Rodgers has played in half a game. Young had proven WAY more than Rodgers has. Do you really think 49ers would have told Montana to go away if the only game Young had played was ONE good game.

FOUR - "Montana recovered from his injuries at the end of the 1992 season, but had lost the starting quarterback job to Steve Young. Montana, who felt he had more football left in him, was then traded to the Kansas City Chiefs in April 1993." - The 49ers did not go out publicly and say after Montana said he wanted to start - "Hey come back and be a back up". That is insulting to a legend who gave you so much. At that point you say "ok, sorry we've moved on, let's try to work out a trade". But noooooooooooooo, TT has to try to play the media game.

FIVE - THE KEY POINT. "Young finished the season with an NFL best 101.8 passer rating. Despite missing five games, he still threw for 2,517 yards and 17 touchdowns with only 8 interceptions." THAT IS WHY THE 49ERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR MOVE. He finished the 1991 season with the league's best passer rating!

SIX - This is the most insane part. In Young's previous season before Montana was traded (1992). "Young finished the season with 3,456 passing yards and 537 rushing yards, along with an NFL best 25 touchdown passes and 107.0 passer rating, earning him the Most Valuable Player award." - MVP

MVP

MVP v. Playing in half game in Dallas.

STOP COMPARING RODGERS TO YOUNG AND FAVRE TO MONTANA. It doesn't work. Do you honestly think that the 49ers would be treating Montana like this if Young had played HALF a game. NO. MVP v. Half a game, this should put any Rodgers comparisons to Young away forever.

Not to mention the fact that people that bring up Young ignore Griese, Feeley, etc.

On the field yes they don't compare but I don't think you understand the comparison or the rational behind the comparison.

You can't deny that 49ers fans loved Montana maybe as much as Packer fans love Brett Favre. That's the comparison that needs to be made. It's the truth.

The easy way out for the 49ers would've been to go with Montana and please the fans. They made the hard choice and went with Young in spite of fans.

Obviously the easy choice for Green Bay is to go with Favre and please the fans. It appears Rodgers it the guy now in spite of the fans.

49er fans rooted on Montana when he came back to San Francisco as a Kansas City Chief. The Chiefs actually won that game I believe.

A good portion of Packer fans are already preparing to jump ship to wherever Favre lands.

So the comparison can be made in terms of the politics of this and how the fans feel.

Montana did not win a Super Bowl in Kansas City. He was close but he didn't get there.

Young went to 4 NFC Championship games as the 49ers starting QB and won Super Bowl 29. When he got that Super Bowl I would say most 49er fans let go of Montana and finally gave in and felt Young was indeed the right move.

The point there is it worked. Going with Young worked and was a success. Meaning yes it's possible to follow a legend and be successful. Steve Young did it and really not that long ago as well.

I don't think anyone can say Rodgers is Steve Young yet but that is the best comparison you can make in terms of success.

Now if you want too say Jay Fiedler following Dan Marino then go for it but Young had a long term career with the 49ers, Fielder didn't in Miami even though the Dolphins were 11-5 and in the playoffs the year after Marino retired.

If you want too compare Rodgers to Bubby Brister or Brian Griese then go for it but the bottom line is you can't criticize Rodgers for being bad and then yell at people for saying he might be good with the excuse he hasn't played.

Really so how do you know he's going too be bad? He hasn't played. Person A said themselves.

The Young/Montana to Favre/Rodgers comparison is basically proof that yes it's absolutely possible to follow a legend and succeed. Does that mean Rodgers will? Nobody knows.

I hope you get what I'm trying too say. I'm not comparing Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young on the field. I guess I'm comparing the fans point of views.

 

[de_real_deal]

I'm so sick of this comparison of situations. I just heard someone on the radio go off about how Montana/Young proves that the Favre/Rodgers situation is being handled properly. Complete ignorance of the facts. Heather's post gave me the inspiration to refute this.

ONE - Montana was injured in January 1991. He missed the ENTIRE 1991-92 season and Montana barely played the season before he was traded (1992-1993). Favre did not miss a single game in 16+ years. Favre finished with 4000+ yards, 28 TD's and in OT of the NFC Championship season. Montana barely played in his last season.

THREE - Rodgers is NOT Steve Young - Case and Point below.

"In 1989, he displayed his potential to become the team's starter in the future. While Montana won the NFL MVP award and led the team to victory in Super Bowl XXIV, Young still had a good season, completing 69% of his passes for 1,001 yards and 8 touchdowns, with only 3 interceptions. In his four seasons as a backup, he had thrown 23 touchdown passes and only six interceptions. It seemed there was a good chance he would eventually become the team's starter."

Rodgers has played in half a game. Young had proven WAY more than Rodgers has. Do you really think 49ers would have told Montana to go away if the only game Young had played was ONE good game.

FOUR - "Montana recovered from his injuries at the end of the 1992 season, but had lost the starting quarterback job to Steve Young. Montana, who felt he had more football left in him, was then traded to the Kansas City Chiefs in April 1993." - The 49ers did not go out publicly and say after Montana said he wanted to start - "Hey come back and be a back up". That is insulting to a legend who gave you so much. At that point you say "ok, sorry we've moved on, let's try to work out a trade". But noooooooooooooo, TT has to try to play the media game.

FIVE - THE KEY POINT. "Young finished the season with an NFL best 101.8 passer rating. Despite missing five games, he still threw for 2,517 yards and 17 touchdowns with only 8 interceptions." THAT IS WHY THE 49ERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR MOVE. He finished the 1991 season with the league's best passer rating!

SIX - This is the most insane part. In Young's previous season before Montana was traded (1992). "Young finished the season with 3,456 passing yards and 537 rushing yards, along with an NFL best 25 touchdown passes and 107.0 passer rating, earning him the Most Valuable Player award." - MVP

MVP

MVP v. Playing in half game in Dallas.

STOP COMPARING RODGERS TO YOUNG AND FAVRE TO MONTANA. It doesn't work. Do you honestly think that the 49ers would be treating Montana like this if Young had played HALF a game. NO. MVP v. Half a game, this should put any Rodgers comparisons to Young away forever.

Not to mention the fact that people that bring up Young ignore Griese, Feeley, etc.

Save your breath and time. Your logic does not matter. TT is the cult leader and you can not sway the brain washed cult followers with logic. They will have to learn and see the hard way.

Pretty funny i agree. 1/2 game in garbage time = time for you to move on brett. Such bad management and dumb fans.

Dumb fans? Any argument you have has been made moot by reverting to calling people "dumb fans".

I will just have to find the strength to move on without your support

 

[Anubis]

The Young/Montana to Favre/Rodgers comparison is basically proof that yes it's absolutely possible to follow a legend and succeed. Does that mean Rodgers will? Nobody knows.

I hope you get what I'm trying too say. I'm not comparing Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young on the field. I guess I'm comparing the fans point of views.

With all due respect, no one is claiming a QB cannot be successful in the post-Favre era in Green Bay. The point of the original post is that at the time, the 49ers knew they had a better chance of winning with Young. Can you honestly say that you feel that the Packers have a better chance of a Super Bowl in 2008 with Rogers at the helm than Favre?

 

[porky88]

The Young/Montana to Favre/Rodgers comparison is basically proof that yes it's absolutely possible to follow a legend and succeed. Does that mean Rodgers will? Nobody knows.

I hope you get what I'm trying too say. I'm not comparing Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young on the field. I guess I'm comparing the fans point of views.

With all due respect, no one is claiming a QB cannot be successful in the post-Favre era in Green Bay. The point of the original post is that at the time, the 49ers knew they had a better chance of winning with Young. Can you honestly say that you feel that the Packers have a better chance of a Super Bowl in 2008 with Rogers at the helm than Favre?

Well of course eventually a QB can and will succeed in Green Bay post Favre. That's not what I'm saying but people are saying no chance Rodgers can succeed.

You even hear it on the radio in GB. People on here are saying 5-11 on this forum and saying they'll laugh about it. I heard 7-9 on here as well. So the fan reaction is bitter and ridiculous on both sides. The Young to Rodgers comparison is simply stating that yes it can be done. You can follow a legend right away and do well.

Now I said if I were Thompson I'd go with Favre because I think the window for a Super Bowl can close on you fast. Holgrem's and Wolf's window was about 3 or 4 seasons with Favre when he was in Green Bay.

However, I'm not saying it's impossible for Rodgers to win a Super Bowl even as early as next year. Favre said it in his press conference. He could be Tiki Barber. The team is very good.

Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin were basically a loss away from being ran out of New York and they got the job done. Nothing is impossible.

Will that happen in Green Bay this year? I honestly don't know but I'm not forgetting about 2008 season with Rodgers. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince myself that Aaron Rodgers is going to be a bad QB because he's not Brett Favre.

 

[Anubis]

I don't feel Rodgers is a guaranteed washout by any means. I think the man has talent, and I do respect TT's and MM's evaluation in that regard. In fact, I was thinking we would be OK for the season when Favre announced his retirement. I would prefer to have Favre as QB, but if he wanted to retire, Rodgers was the man.

However, regardless of who is to blame, Favre has decided he wants to play this year. This has created an entire storm of chaos over 1265. From what I have heard, the locker room is already divided if the media is to be believed at all (however I don't take much stock in modern press). Rodgers press conference a few weeks ago showed that the pressure was already reaching a boiling point, and now he has new this to contend with. IMO, TT should make the most out of a poor turn of events and have the two of them compete for the starting position. This would take away some of the fan's ire as well as boost Rodgers' confidence if he wins the spot. Alternatively, if Favre wins, we may see him win one more for GB before he goes. Either way, the outcome would be a lot better than the Mexican standoff both sides seem intent on having.

 

[dd80forever]

Now I said if I were Thompson I'd go with Favre because I think the window for a Super Bowl can close on you fast.

That why alot of us are outraged. Ted's playing a game at the expense of the fans. That's unacceptable to me.

 

[dd80forever]

I don't feel Rodgers is a guaranteed washout by any means. I think the man has talent, and I do respect TT's and MM's evaluation in that regard. In fact, I was thinking we would be OK for the season when Favre announced his retirement. I would prefer to have Favre as QB, but if he wanted to retire, Rodgers was the man.

However, regardless of who is to blame, Favre has decided he wants to play this year. This has created an entire storm of chaos over 1265. From what I have heard, the locker room is already divided if the media is to be believed at all (however I don't take much stock in modern press). Rodgers press conference a few weeks ago showed that the pressure was already reaching a boiling point, and now he has new this to contend with. IMO, TT should make the most out of a poor turn of events and have the two of them compete for the starting position. This would take away some of the fan's ire as well as boost Rodgers' confidence if he wins the spot. Alternatively, if Favre wins, we may see him win one more for GB before he goes. Either way, the outcome would be a lot better than the Mexican standoff both sides seem intent on having.

That echoes my opinion. What is this game crap. Do what's best for the current group of players and the fan's. You want to win in 2012, Just state it and we'll quit showing up and spending mad cash on Sunday's. Then just let us know when this "Master Plan" is complete and we'll come back, cash in hand.

 

[porky88]

I don't feel Rodgers is a guaranteed washout by any means. I think the man has talent, and I do respect TT's and MM's evaluation in that regard. In fact, I was thinking we would be OK for the season when Favre announced his retirement. I would prefer to have Favre as QB, but if he wanted to retire, Rodgers was the man.

However, regardless of who is to blame, Favre has decided he wants to play this year. This has created an entire storm of chaos over 1265. From what I have heard, the locker room is already divided if the media is to be believed at all (however I don't take much stock in modern press). Rodgers press conference a few weeks ago showed that the pressure was already reaching a boiling point, and now he has new this to contend with. IMO, TT should make the most out of a poor turn of events and have the two of them compete for the starting position. This would take away some of the fan's ire as well as boost Rodgers' confidence if he wins the spot. Alternatively, if Favre wins, we may see him win one more for GB before he goes. Either way, the outcome would be a lot better than the Mexican standoff both sides seem intent on having.

I agree and that's why I go Favre.

However, Ted Thompson is the executive of the year voted on by his peers. I think he and Mike McCarthy have earned the benefit of the doubt and that's why I'm looking forward to 2008 regardless.

Option #1

Favre comes back and I get too watch Brett Favre play again.

Option #2

I'm excited about Aaron Rodgers. I still feel that way and I get to see what he can do.

PR wise I think the Packers are in a horrible position but on the field I think they can overcome this IF they get it resolved sooner rather than later.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Joe Montana's final year as a 49er is also the same year Steve Young won the NFL MVP.

Anyone who thinks the the situations are the same, simply does not all the information.

 

[Anubis]

PR wise I think the Packers are in a horrible position but on the field I think they can overcome this IF they get it resolved sooner rather than later.

Let's hope so for the sake of the 2008 season.

 

[dd80forever]

However, Ted Thompson is the executive of the year voted on by his peers.

So was Mickey Loomis in 2006 and they went 7-9 lat year.