Favre is still better

[weeds]

I don't get hung up on how many Super Bowls a QB is in. It's just one of the games that's played, and to get there, it takes a team effort, and good coaching. It's not all on the QB's shoulders.

After watching Packer and other NFL QBs since the 40s, I am going to rate Rodgers the best we've had, and by a wide margin. Reason? He does not throw the ball away, and give the opportunity to the other team to score. As for where he stands, among all QBs, he's one of about 10 guys that I think can all be called the best in their own rights, and you wouldn't be far off, if you even were.

The game has evolved, and the players have evolved with it, so you need to consider who is best in their era. Three, from this era, that need to be counted for sure, would be Manning, Brady, and Rodgers.

But, that's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours, even though you'd be wrong.

I'm with you 100%. I, however, am a lot more belligerent about it than you. Anytime I see a post containing the term GOAT, my eyes roll to the back of my head and I go into "coma mode".

...and then, there's this: "After watching Packer and other NFL QBs since the 40s" -- could you even imagine the crying and whimpering of the 3 you mention if by some "The Final Countdown-esque" quirk, any one of them were transported to the NFL circa 60's, 70's or early 80's? I mean, strip away the protections afforded QB's today, AND, the more liberal P.I. calls, these 3 would figuratively give birth on every play.

 

[Voyageur]

I'm with you 100%. I, however, am a lot more belligerent about it than you. Anytime I see a post containing the term GOAT, my eyes roll to the back of my head and I go into "coma mode".

...and then, there's this: "After watching Packer and other NFL QBs since the 40s" -- could you even imagine the crying and whimpering of the 3 you mention if by some "The Final Countdown-esque" quirk, any one of them were transported to the NFL circa 60's, 70's or early 80's? I mean, strip away the protections afforded QB's today, AND, the more liberal P.I. calls, these 3 would figuratively give birth on every play.

Quite often, people don't understand just how good they have it until they lose it. If they spent time in the 70s, paying for season tickets, and still going to games because you believed in miracles, they'd understand exactly how some of us feel. But then, it's the differences we have that makes discussions worthwhile.

 

[weeds]

Quite often, people don't understand just how good they have it until they lose it. If they spent time in the 70s, paying for season tickets, and still going to games because you believed in miracles, they'd understand exactly how some of us feel. But then, it's the differences we have that makes discussions worthwhile.

Oh, I get it. I can't speak for you but when I was a younger man, even pre-season wins mattered. We got 6 extra kicks at the cat to watch the Pack win in Lambeau. It's just that it kind of irritates me when I have to sound like an old fart by reminding the younger (considerably younger, I might add) fans that the game has indeed evolved in more ways than just the speed of the game. It's now a live action video game sans the ferocity that you and I as younger men witnessed. Still, every week like clockwork - there I am tuning in

 

[Voyageur]

Oh, I get it. I can't speak for you but when I was a younger man, even pre-season wins mattered. We got 6 extra kicks at the cat to watch the Pack win in Lambeau. It's just that it kind of irritates me when I have to sound like an old fart by reminding the younger (considerably younger, I might add) fans that the game has indeed evolved in more ways than just the speed of the game. It's now a live action video game sans the ferocity that you and I as younger men witnessed. Still, every week like clockwork - there I am tuning in

Amen! It's amazing how many times we got kicked in the crotch and came back the following week, filling Lambeau when nobody else was filling their stadiums, even though we knew that by late Sunday afternoon we'd be on the losing side of a lopsided score.

Those were the days when blackouts ticked almost everyone off, except Packer fans, because we had 100% sales, and the no-show total was often under a dozen seats, and that's amazing when you think about deaths, illnesses, accidents on the way to the game, etc.

I think, if I'd been in a car wreck on my way to the game, and they had to haul me away in an ambulance, I'd tell them to deliver me to my seat at Lambeau, I could go to the hospital later.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In combining some of the thoughts of the 2 posts, I have to wonder what would/will happen in Green Bay if the team struggles for consecutive seasons for years or even a decade or 2. Yes, the die hard fans stood behind them in the late 70's through the mid 90's, but 2 things have changed. Price of tickets and fan base. I can still go to a morning matinee for around $7 and see a great movie, a Packer ticket starts at around $125 and sky rockets from there. I can tune into just about anything on TV and watch it from the comfort of my couch. Will people be willing to pay that price to see a losing team, game after game? Especially, after the last 25+ years of mostly winning season. TV has almost made the experience like being there and with so many other options available for entertainment, will the 40 and under crowd still want to shell out the kind of money it costs to go see the Packers play, if they are consistently losing games?

 

[Voyageur]

In combining some of the thoughts of the 2 posts, I have to wonder what would/will happen in Green Bay if the team struggles for consecutive seasons for years or even a decade or 2. Yes, the die hard fans stood behind them in the late 70's through the mid 90's, but 2 things have changed. Price of tickets and fan base. I can still go to a morning matinee for around $7 and see a great movie, a Packer ticket starts at around $125 and sky rockets from there. I can tune into just about anything on TV and watch it from the comfort of my couch. Will people be willing to pay that price to see a losing team, game after game? Especially, after the last 25+ years of mostly winning season. TV has almost made the experience like being there and with so many other options available for entertainment, will the 40 and under crowd still want to shell out the kind of money it costs to go see the Packers play, if they are consistently losing games?

I think you ask a good question. Where will it go with fans, if the talent isn't there to support the "new fan," who spends far more than we did, in the past.

I think we need to compare our fan base to that of ..... let's say..... Jacksonville. They have quite a few empty seats each week. Will that be the type of fans we have in GB? I don't know for sure, but I believe there will always be enough loyal Packer fans out there to fill the stadium. We did it in the 70s, and 80s, so I think it will happen again. Being a Packer fan isn't like being the fan of a normal team. We're more like a bunch of cult followers I think. We bleed green and gold!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I believe there will always be enough loyal Packer fans out there to fill the stadium.

Although I prefer it to never happen (losing seasons), it will be interesting to see what happens to the Packer fan base when it ultimately does. The cost of tickets as well as everything else that is available for people to entertain themselves with, will have a big influence. Going from being usual SB contenders to pretenders won't help either. Hell, seems that at least half the posters in this forum declare a season a failed one if the Packers don't win a Super Bowl. Imagine how those fans will feel after a few 4-13 seasons. I know quite a few "Packer fans", that don't pay much attention to the regular season, but get all excited when they hear that they are in the playoffs.

 

[Mondio]

I have a feeling with the newer crop of fans, if this team starts losing again, the turnover of the next 50K is going to a lot faster than the first 25K in season tickets.

 

[rmontro]

It's now a live action video game sans the ferocity that you and I as younger men witnessed.

That ferocity used to be a main selling point of the game too. Without it, I doubt the NFL would have become the phenomenon that it is now.

 

[Toad]

I think you ask a good question. Where will it go with fans, if the talent isn't there to support the "new fan," who spends far more than we did, in the past.

I think we need to compare our fan base to that of ..... let's say..... Jacksonville. They have quite a few empty seats each week. Will that be the type of fans we have in GB? I don't know for sure, but I believe there will always be enough loyal Packer fans out there to fill the stadium. We did it in the 70s, and 80s, so I think it will happen again. Being a Packer fan isn't like being the fan of a normal team. We're more like a bunch of cult followers I think. We bleed green and gold!

 

[Toad]

I do believe that win or lose true Packer fans will still be filling up Lambeau Field. I know that the price of a ticket is a hefty price to pay to attend a game especially with our economy right now. But the loyal fans of the Pacowill still show up and support the team whether we are winning or losing. It is something in our Packer tradition that sets us apart from most of the other fair weather fans.

 

[Toad]

Sorry meant loyal Packer fans . My phone is acting stupid again!! Lol

 

[weeds]

Sorry meant loyal Packer fans . My phone is acting stupid again!! Lol

I like this - and empathize, still, I have a fall-back schtick at work where I tell co-workers "I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm just saying that we're going to blame you for it." They've become immune to it now but let's not take it out on the electronics.

All right, seriously... I agree with your assessment. When the Pack go through the inevitable rebuild, Lambeau will still be full and people will be clamoring for the tickets currently being scalped on the secondary market. That waiting list for season tickets though ... that baby is gonna drop fast. I'm not convinced that fans of what I call "the ESPN generation" have a whole lot of interest in supporting anything other than a perpetual contender. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment and very well could be. My fandom has been because, largely, of geography and because my father was a big Packers fan through the 50's and 60's. He dragged me into it as a 7 year old in '65 and now, I've dragged my kid into it. He however can't remember when the Pack weren't perpetual contenders.

 

[weeds]

Although I prefer it to never happen (losing seasons), it will be interesting to see what happens to the Packer fan base when it ultimately does. The cost of tickets as well as everything else that is available for people to entertain themselves with, will have a big influence. Going from being usual SB contenders to pretenders won't help either. Hell, seems that at least half the posters in this forum declare a season a failed one if the Packers don't win a Super Bowl. Imagine how those fans will feel after a few 4-13 seasons. I know quite a few "Packer fans", that don't pay much attention to the regular season, but get all excited when they hear that they are in the playoffs.

O-EM-GEE .... I know what you're saying. My god, after the birth of the internet fan forum which is an embryonic "social media" if you will ... yeesh....

 

[Toad]

I like this - and empathize, still, I have a fall-back schtick at work where I tell co-workers "I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm just saying that we're going to blame you for it." They've become immune to it now but let's not take it out on the electronics.

All right, seriously... I agree with your assessment. When the Pack go through the inevitable rebuild, Lambeau will still be full and people will be clamoring for the tickets currently being scalped on the secondary market. That waiting list for season tickets though ... that baby is gonna drop fast. I'm not convinced that fans of what I call "the ESPN generation" have a whole lot of interest in supporting anything other than a perpetual contender. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment and very well could be. My fandom has been because, largely, of geography and because my father was a big Packers fan through the 50's and 60's. He dragged me into it as a 7 year old in '65 and now, I've dragged my kid into it. He however can't remember when the Pack weren't perpetual contenders.

Yes I know exactly what you mean. Grew up the youngest of three girls and my Dad was a former high school starting fullback. I started watching the games with Him as a very little girl and drove Him nuts with all of my questions. He knew that He had me hooked on the Pack permanently and yes I had a Son and He is also a HUGE Packer fan!

 

[realitybytez]

Author Jeff Pearlman advises fans to not read his biography of Brett Favre after release of text messages

Jeff Pearlman, who wrote a bestselling biography of Brett Favre in 2016, tweeted that people shouldn't read his book and that Favre is "a bad guy."

www.usatoday.com

 

[gopkrs]

You wouldn't think Favre would need money.

 

[Mondio]

He didn't, it was funneled somewhere else. I'm not up on the story enough to have much of an opinion, though I never thought Brett was as stand up as everyone made him out to be. Truth be told, it doesn't matter to me either. he's not a friend or someone I hold in any higher regard than a great football player. They carry no extra weight with me.

 

[gopkrs]

still, it would be pretty low if he knew what was happening.

 

[Heyjoe4]

He didn't, it was funneled somewhere else. I'm not up on the story enough to have much of an opinion, though I never thought Brett was as stand up as everyone made him out to be. Truth be told, it doesn't matter to me either. he's not a friend or someone I hold in any higher regard than a great football player. They carry no extra weight with me.

Well said Mondio. I don't know the guy either, so innocent until proven otherwise. Same way I feel about Rodgers. He's a great player and he's not perfect, like all of us. Best not to go further than that.

 

[Voyageur]

I'll wait until the entire story comes out, but I do know politics well enough to realize that there are a lot of deals that divert money from one point to another, and it isn't always in the best interest of the people. In this case, I doubt very much that a volleyball venue is as important as the needs of those less fortunate in the state of Mississippi. But, then again, remember, we are talking about Mississippi, aren't we?

 

[Heyjoe4]

I'll wait until the entire story comes out, but I do know politics well enough to realize that there are a lot of deals that divert money from one point to another, and it isn't always in the best interest of the people. In this case, I doubt very much that a volleyball venue is as important as the needs of those less fortunate in the state of Mississippi. But, then again, remember, we are talking about Mississippi, aren't we?

Good point. I don't understand em, but the Deep South has its share of strange cats......

 

[weeds]

I read about the volleyball venue months ago ... and that his interest was so heavy because his daughter played VB there. Why this keeps getting dredged up just tells me that someone is hell-bent on prosecuting a big name to score political points. An ascension to the top using the dead bodies as a staircase.

 

[weeds]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[longtimefan]

Well said Mondio. I don't know the guy either, so innocent until proven otherwise. Same way I feel about Rodgers. He's a great player and he's not perfect, like all of us. Best not to go further than that.

I heard and seen stuff 2006 and 7.. Then 08 when whole rodgers thing went down. Worked for a business partner of his

His media team then was like a huge dryer. The spin cycle was huge