Arrogant General Managers

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
149
Well Mike, you apparently have been talking to the wrong people who know nothing of which they speak.

1. Ridiculous to even put Wolf and arrogance in the same post considering he was the first architect of the last 30 successful years

2. Thompson wasn't either and for once this made up narrative that he drove Favre out of here needs to stop once and for all. Only person who drove him out was Favre himself and anyone with any sense in their head knows it.

Only issue with Thompson is that he probably should have realized his health was deteriorating sooner than he did and retire a couple years prior to when he did. But he loved this organization and was never in it just for himself.

3. Gute ... Sure I've questioned his moves plenty and didn't always like what he did. But everything I've seen of him indicates he embodies the Green Bay values as much as any.
It's funny how quickly we forget Favre's antics around that time. If I remember correctly, he unretired himself again after the Packers had committed to Rodgers as the starter, and it was late in the year, like June. And yeah, TT had nothing to do with that fiasco. That was all Favre.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
149
I like the idea of a move the chains type of offense in GB. Keep the ball, tire out the other team's defense. Sometimes you need to stretch the field. But sometimes when Rodgers has thrown in downfield, I've gotten the impression he just got impatient. Just sometimes.
Isn't that the idea behind Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense? Grind it out, move the chains 10 yards at a time, score, and dominate TOP.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
149
Isn't that the idea behind Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense? Grind it out, move the chains 10 yards at a time, score, and dominate TOP.
Everyone says that and of course there is truth to it. But run after the catch was a huge thing for them. And Montana threw the ball so well. I just think that idea is an oversimplification of a really well rounded team with some great players that could do a lot of things.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
127
It's funny how quickly we forget Favre's antics around that time. If I remember correctly, he unretired himself again after the Packers had committed to Rodgers as the starter, and it was late in the year, like June. And yeah, TT had nothing to do with that fiasco. That was all Favre.

It's funny how quickly we forget Favre's antics around that time. If I remember correctly, he unretired himself again after the Packers had committed to Rodgers as the starter, and it was late in the year, like June. And yeah, TT had nothing to do with that fiasco. That was all Favre.
"No one was happy with the pick. The fans hated it; the Lambeau Field draft party going on below us booed so loudly that it shook our souls. The media gave us F’s in their grades. Favre was livid; he called our coach right away, and his agent called me. And for the next three years, we would hear from Brett’s camp asking: “Andrew, do you know what it’s like to come into work every day and sit with your replacement? That stinks.” And I would hear from Aaron’s camp asking: “Andrew, is he ever going to play? Brett’s never going to retire; you know that.”

The Packers FO made a choice because they were forced to. They had to either let Rodgers play or send him elsewhere. They ended up doing it a year early because Favre retired prematurely...the situation is eerily similar today except that Loves camp isn't to the point yet where they're saying play me or trade me.

They ended up moving on from Favre a year early they could of made one more run with Favre instead they went from nfc championship game at home to 6-10. Had they let Favre do that maybe he retires the next year after they win the superbowl who knows...
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
149
"No one was happy with the pick. The fans hated it; the Lambeau Field draft party going on below us booed so loudly that it shook our souls. The media gave us F’s in their grades. Favre was livid; he called our coach right away, and his agent called me. And for the next three years, we would hear from Brett’s camp asking: “Andrew, do you know what it’s like to come into work every day and sit with your replacement? That stinks.” And I would hear from Aaron’s camp asking: “Andrew, is he ever going to play? Brett’s never going to retire; you know that.”

The Packers FO made a choice because they were forced to. They had to either let Rodgers play or send him elsewhere. They ended up doing it a year early because Favre retired prematurely...the situation is eerily similar today except that Loves camp isn't to the point yet where they're saying play me or trade me.

They ended up moving on from Favre a year early they could of made one more run with Favre instead they went from nfc championship game at home to 6-10. Had they let Favre do that maybe he retires the next year after they win the superbowl who knows...
How long did Rodgers sit behind Favre? I thought it was 3 seasons. I remember personally not liking the Rodgers pick. I was living in Nor Cal at the time and saw a lot of Cal games. He held the ball way up, next to his ear. And then I think he broke his foot in a PS game, and then the 6-10 start following, as you note, the NFCCG. So I hope Rodgers stays for at least another year. And Love's career could be ruined if he's forced to start too soon.
 

G0P4ckG0

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
540
Reaction score
63
How long did Rodgers sit behind Favre? I thought it was 3 seasons. I remember personally not liking the Rodgers pick. I was living in Nor Cal at the time and saw a lot of Cal games. He held the ball way up, next to his ear. And then I think he broke his foot in a PS game, and then the 6-10 start following, as you note, the NFCCG. So I hope Rodgers stays for at least another year. And Love's career could be ruined if he's forced to start too soon.
At the time none of us were convinced Favre would retire before 50, so drafting Rodgers was understandably worth questioning. Plus the cap situation was manageable and Favre always seemed willing to take a pay cut if it meant helping the team.

With Love, the pick makes sense solely due to the salary Rodgers is (was going to) be commanding along with other upcoming free agents. Plus nowadays players rarely play beyond 40 and the front office likely assumed that would be the case with Rodgers, especially considering Rodgers' injury history.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
149
At the time none of us were convinced Favre would retire before 50, so drafting Rodgers was understandably worth questioning. Plus the cap situation was manageable and Favre always seemed willing to take a pay cut if it meant helping the team.

With Love, the pick makes sense solely due to the salary Rodgers is (was going to) be commanding along with other upcoming free agents. Plus nowadays players rarely play beyond 40 and the front office likely assumed that would be the case with Rodgers, especially considering Rodgers' injury history.
I actually LOL'd when you wrote we were expecting Favre to play until he was 50. That's true and aside from that season with the Jets, he had two very good years with the Queens.

You bring up something else I hadn't considered that maybe Gluten did when he drafted Love, and that's Rodgers' injury history. On that last series against Tampa Bay from the 8 yard line, it sure looked like Rodgers could have run it down to the one or two yard line, but he was facing a bevy of very aggressive TB defenders and he wasn't going to slide. I'm not saying TB is a dirty team, but at that point, with the SB on the line, they could have very well taken him out of the game. And Rodgers knows his own injury history. And yes, he won the MVP. On the one hand that's amazing given the WR group - but that O-line was certainly one of the best in the NFL, and that makes a big difference.

And again, we were all in love with Favre (most of us) and just didn't see Rodgers as ever being an adequate replacement for our beloved #4 Ironman. We were all wrong, thankfully. Well, we're in that situation again. And when I look at the 2021 schedule, it's hard for me to see the Packers winning more than 11 or 12 games WITH Rodgers. And I just don't see a SB in the making. All that said, maybe Gluten would be smart to trade him for a couple of first round picks. maybe a real ILB or DLineman, and a temporary QB to get them through 2021 (I don't think it's Bortles).

If Gluten is right about Love, it would be a shame to put a starter's responsibility on him this soon. I guess we'll have a better idea in TC and the PS.
 

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
3,788
Reaction score
226
They ended up moving on from Favre a year early they could of made one more run with Favre instead they went from nfc championship game at home to 6-10. Had they let Favre do that maybe he retires the next year after they win the superbowl who knows...

I'm pretty sure not considering he couldn't do it with a team in Minny that most experts at the time said was the best he ever had.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
127
I'm pretty sure not considering he couldn't do it with a team in Minny that most experts at the time said was the best he ever had.

I'm talking about the year he was in new york with the Jets...but no matter what you think, you think the Packers would of made the playoffs with Favre in 2008. So they would of had a chance. Sht the Jets were looking great til Favre hurt his elbow or shoulder dont remember which
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
25,648
Reaction score
1,290
The Packers FO made a choice because they were forced to. They had to either let Rodgers play or send him elsewhere. They ended up doing it a year early because Favre retired prematurely...the situation is eerily similar today except that Loves camp isn't to the point yet where they're saying play me or trade me.

They ended up moving on from Favre a year early they could of made one more run with Favre instead they went from nfc championship game at home to 6-10. Had they let Favre do that maybe he retires the next year after they win the superbowl who knows...

The Packers would have risked to lose Rodgers by holding on to Favre for another year. Their offense ranked fifth in points scored in the league during Rodgers first season as a starter but they finished 6-10 because their defense (22nd in scoring) struggled.

With Love, the pick makes sense solely due to the salary Rodgers is (was going to) be commanding along with other upcoming free agents. Plus nowadays players rarely play beyond 40 and the front office likely assumed that would be the case with Rodgers, especially considering Rodgers' injury history.

Rodgers was pretty vocal about wanting to play into his 40s though.

I actually LOL'd when you wrote we were expecting Favre to play until he was 50. That's true and aside from that season with the Jets, he had two very good years with the Queens.

Favre had one fantastic season with the Vikings but struggled in his second one with them posting the lowest passer rating of his career (69.9, 11 TD, 19 INT).
 

lambeaulambo

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
132
Location
Rest Home
I'm talking about the year he was in new york with the Jets...but no matter what you think, you think the Packers would of made the playoffs with Favre in 2008. So they would of had a chance. Sht the Jets were looking great til Favre hurt his elbow or shoulder dont remember which
who are these jets u r referring to? lol...and Favre's last year in trophyless land was out with a whimper.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
127
who are these jets u r referring to? lol...and Favre's last year in trophyless land was out with a whimper.

I'm only talking about 1 additional year of Favre, any more than that and they would of lost Rodgers...that final year in Minnesota was terrible I agree but not what I was talking about
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
149
The Packers would have risked to lose Rodgers by holding on to Favre for another year. Their offense ranked fifth in points scored in the league during Rodgers first season as a starter but they finished 6-10 because their defense (22nd in scoring) struggled.



Rodgers was pretty vocal about wanting to play into his 40s though.



Favre had one fantastic season with the Vikings but struggled in his second one with them posting the lowest passer rating of his career (69.9, 11 TD, 19 INT).
That's right it was his first year with the Queens when he was one play away from the SB and he threw an INT to give NO the win. Funny he did something similar against the Giants in 2008.
 

G0P4ckG0

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
540
Reaction score
63
That's right it was his first year with the Queens when he was one play away from the SB and he threw an INT to give NO the win. Funny he did something similar against the Giants in 2008.
To be fair, Peterson fumbled about 3 times and the refs did nothing to penalize the Saints for their bountygate hits during the game. Favre was playing on one foot for half the game and was still lighting it up. He was not the primary reason for that loss
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
149
To be fair, Peterson fumbled about 3 times and the refs did nothing to penalize the Saints for their bountygate hits during the game. Favre was playing on one foot for half the game and was still lighting it up. He was not the primary reason for that loss
You are probably right. But he sure did throw that pick.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
25,648
Reaction score
1,290
I'm only talking about 1 additional year of Favre, any more than that and they would of lost Rodgers...that final year in Minnesota was terrible I agree but not what I was talking about

I highly doubt that Rodgers would have stayed with the Packers if the team decided to retain Favre after what happened in the 2008 offseason.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
127
I highly doubt that Rodgers would have stayed with the Packers if the team decided to retain Favre after what happened in the 2008 offseason.

Well you might be right and probably are... obviously Rodgers camp was pressuring the FO at the time...but they could of franchised him if it came down to it. Expensive option but worth it if you're confident he's a franchise qb

As we know they were not confident in him...hence they drafted 2 QBs in the 2008 draft
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
25,648
Reaction score
1,290
Well you might be right and probably are... obviously Rodgers camp was pressuring the FO at the time...but they could of franchised him if it came down to it. Expensive option but worth it if you're confident he's a franchise qb

As we know they were not confident in him...hence they drafted 2 QBs in the 2008 draft

The Packers couldn't have franchise tagged Rodgers after the 2008 season because he would have still be under contract for the '09 campaign.

He might have demanded a trade if the Packers would have stuck with Favre in 2008.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
127
The Packers couldn't have franchise tagged Rodgers after the 2008 season because he would have still be under contract for the '09 campaign.

He might have demanded a trade if the Packers would have stuck with Favre in 2008.

He had a 5 year contract ? I thought they were 4 back then...in that case then yeah I wouldve kept Favre 1 more year for sure. And took my chances that I could convince Rodgers to be the starter in 2009.

How many years did Favre still have ? I thought 2 also so they still could of traded him after 2008 season

5 years 7.65 million so yeah I would of kept Favre for 2008 and then rolled with Rodgers in 2009. You're right he might of requested a trade but I don't think he had the leverage to make it happen back then...and I think he could of been convinced to wait one more year and be in a great situation after they traded Favre for more than a 2nd round pick to a team in division
 
Last edited:

sjb12681

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
550
Reaction score
93
Location
Carmel, Indiana
Not to rehash the Favre drama, but let's imagine that we had done what some thought we should have then... Kept Favre and let Aaron walk...

The natural thought being that given GB penchant for draft and develop, we would have sought out a qb on the high end of the draft sometime after, between 2009-2012...

Here is a list of the QBs drafted in the 1st during that timeframe:

2012:
1. Andrew Luck, Stanford, Colts
2. Robert Griffin III, Baylor, Redskins
8. Ryan Tannehill, Texas A&M, Dolphins
22. Brandon Weeden, Oklahoma State, Browns
___
2011:
1. Cam Newton, Auburn, Panthers
8. Jake Locker, Washington, Titans
10. Blaine Gabbert, Missouri, Jaguars
12. Christian Ponder, Florida State, Vikings
___
2010:
1. Sam Bradford, Oklahoma, Rams
25. Tim Tebow, Florida, Broncos
___
2009:
1. Matthew Stafford, Georgia, Lions
5. Mark Sanchez, USC, Jets
17. Josh Freeman, Kansas State, Buccaneers

Now, assuming we kept drafting not top 5 overall... We would have given up on a known (albeit limited) commodity in Rodgers to get one of these gentlemen. Yuck.

Again this is assuming we weren't trading for a qb, but that's not really how GB rolls, so chances are we would have one of these guys at the helm vs Aaron.

The point being that I believe we made the right call then not giving into Favre, and believe we are doing the right thing now not giving into Aaron. Eventually these guys will leave, retire or stop playing well and you have to move on.

If you have faith that your "guy" is the next guy, then you have to trust your system, and stick to your gameplan on staying competitive.
 

G0P4ckG0

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
540
Reaction score
63
Not to rehash the Favre drama, but let's imagine that we had done what some thought we should have then... Kept Favre and let Aaron walk...

The natural thought being that given GB penchant for draft and develop, we would have sought out a qb on the high end of the draft sometime after, between 2009-2012...

Here is a list of the QBs drafted in the 1st during that timeframe:

2012:
1. Andrew Luck, Stanford, Colts
2. Robert Griffin III, Baylor, Redskins
8. Ryan Tannehill, Texas A&M, Dolphins
22. Brandon Weeden, Oklahoma State, Browns
___
2011:
1. Cam Newton, Auburn, Panthers
8. Jake Locker, Washington, Titans
10. Blaine Gabbert, Missouri, Jaguars
12. Christian Ponder, Florida State, Vikings
___
2010:
1. Sam Bradford, Oklahoma, Rams
25. Tim Tebow, Florida, Broncos
___
2009:
1. Matthew Stafford, Georgia, Lions
5. Mark Sanchez, USC, Jets
17. Josh Freeman, Kansas State, Buccaneers

Now, assuming we kept drafting not top 5 overall... We would have given up on a known (albeit limited) commodity in Rodgers to get one of these gentlemen. Yuck.

Again this is assuming we weren't trading for a qb, but that's not really how GB rolls, so chances are we would have one of these guys at the helm vs Aaron.

The point being that I believe we made the right call then not giving into Favre, and believe we are doing the right thing now not giving into Aaron. Eventually these guys will leave, retire or stop playing well and you have to move on.

If you have faith that your "guy" is the next guy, then you have to trust your system, and stick to your gameplan on staying competitive.
I think we would have ended up with Tebow
 

Phil Young

Cheesehead
Joined
May 23, 2021
Messages
55
Reaction score
6
Location
Pelton Fell
it follows a cycle...how can we replace favre...I hate Rodgers...I love Rodgers..How do we replace Rodgers...I hate love... & repeat changing names as needed.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top